Under Federal Rule 59(e) (Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment), a motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment. Critically, Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b) includes a clause precluding courts from extending the 28-day deadline for requests brought under certain rules, of which Rule 59(e) is one. No excusable neglect, no good cause, zero discretion.

Rule 60(a) (Relief from a Judgment or Order) states, (a) Corrections Based on Clerical Mistakes; Oversights and Omissions. The court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice. But after an appeal has been docketed in the appellate court and while it is pending, such a mistake may be corrected only with the appellate court's leave. Unlike Rule 59(e), Rule 60(a) is not time limited.

You may think that a petition seeking pre and/or post-judgment interest would properly be a “motion to alter or amend the judgment,” but you’d be wrong. Interest, at least in certain situations, is an entitlement under Pennsylvania law. Because there’s an underlying right/entitlement to the relief, courts have interpreted the addition of interest as a ministerial task, properly within the purview of Rule 60(a).

See Seto v. State Farm Ins. Co., No. 2:10-CV-00505, 2012 WL 4922117, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 16, 2012), wherein the Western District of Pennsylvania held that because Plaintiff was entitled to pre-judgment interest as a matter of law, the addition of such interest was a ministerial act capable of correction by motion under Rule 60(a). See also Hayden v. Scott Aviation, Inc., 684 F.2d 270, 272 (3d Cir. 1982). In Hayden, Hayden filed a motion for inclusion of delay damages four (4) months after entry of the verdict. Defendant objected, arguing that Hayden’s motion was untimely under Rule 59(e). Hayden responded that Rule 59(e) did not apply but rather, his request fell under the purview of Rule 60(a). The Third Circuit agreed.

Post-judgment interest is also a matter of right in Pennsylvania, see 42 Pa. C.S. § 8101, and thus, the above argument applies equally. See InterDigital Commc’ns Corp. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 607 F. Supp. 2d 718, 725 (E.D. Pa. 2009) wherein the Court amended the judgment amount pursuant to Rule 60(a) to add post-judgment interest due under 42 Pa. C.S. § 8101.