issue of whether the district court exceeded the scope of our earlier limited remand to correct its failure to enter a judgment. I would affirm the district court’s belatedly entered judgment. Because the court’s oversight was its failure to enter any judgment at all, it was empowered to correct its mistake by entering a judgment that included any relief, including pre- and post-judgment interest, that could have been included in the judgment in the first instance. A court is allowed, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), to make corrections to effectuate what it “originally intended to do.” Robi v. Five Platters, Inc., 918 F.2d 1439, 1445 (9th Cir.1990). I would affirm. 1 . See, e.g., Rainbow Mgmt. Group, Ltd. v. Atlantis Submarines Haw., L.P., 158 F.R.D. 656, 659 (D.Haw.1994) (<HOLDING>); In re Concept Clubs, Inc., 154 B.R. 581, 586
holding that the opposing party must show substantial harm holding that coparties become opposing parties emphasis added within the meaning of fedrcivp 13a after one such party pleads an initial crossclaim against the other with no discussion of whether an opposing party must be deemed a defendant holding that a party waives its right to arbitration when it engages in protracted litigation that prejudices the opposing party emphasis added holding that implied consent is not established merely one party introduced evidence relevant to an unpleaded issue and the opposing party failed to object recognizing that a party opposing a claim may choose the forum in the absence of objection