
    Emil SZAFRAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SANDATA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 10-3560-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Dec. 2, 2011.
    Sanford F. Young, Law Offices of Sanford F. Young, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Martin D. Edel, Miller & Wrubel P.C., New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, CHESTER J. STRAUB, and DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

On May 11, 2009, the District Court entered judgment for Plaintiff Emil Sza-fran (“Szafran”) on Szafran’s contract claim and for Sandata Technologies, Inc. (“Sandata”) on his quantum meruit claim. On February 3, 2010, the District Court vacated the jury award as to damages on the contract claim. On June 3, 2010, the District Court entered an order vacating the judgment of May 11, 2009 and reopening the case. On August 13, 2010, the District Court entered a final judgment “in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant on the breach of contract claim in the amount of $60,000, inclusive of any and all interests, costs and disbursements to date.”

From the representations of counsel for both parties, as well as from the fact that the District Court “so-ordered” a stipulation that expressly recognized the parties’ intent to bring about “a final Judgment from which an appeal can be taken,” we infer that the District Court intended its August 13, 2010 order to enter final judgment on all claims brought by Szafran against Sandata. However, to make this clear beyond cavil, this case is remanded to the District Court with leave to amend the final judgment of August 13, 2010, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a), by inserting the following after the words “disbursements to date”: “and in favor of the defendant on the quantum meruit claim and the New York labor law claim.” Jurisdiction will be restored to this panel when either party informs us by letter that the final judgment of August 13, 2010 has been amended as discussed herein. See United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19, 22 (2d Cir.1994).  