MEMORANDUM DECISION DENYING FRANKIE OVERTON’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE COURT’S ENFORCEMENT ORDER After exhausting the appellate process, Plaintiff Frankie Overton (“Overton”), as executor of the estate of Sue Ann Graham, filed Frankie Overton’s Motion for Relief from the Court’s “Enforcement Order” to Permit Her to Pursue an Independent Claim Against FCA US LLC (“Motion”), dated July 23, 2020 (ECF Doc. # 8549-1). The Motion asks this Court to correct what Overton characterizes as a clerical error in the Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part FCA US LLC’s Motion to Enforce the Sale Order (“Enforcement Order”), dated Nov. 14, 2018 (ECF Doc. # 8535). The Enforcement Order enjoins Overton from prosecuting claims against FCA US LLC (“FCA” or “New Chrysler”) under the Alabama Wrongful Death Act (“AWDA”). The Motion asks the Court to modify the Enforcement Order to allow Overton to amend the complaint (“Complaint”) filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama (“Alabama State Court”) in a case styled Overton v. Chrysler Group LLC, No. 01-CV 2017-904376-EAF, to assert new claims against New Chrysler.1 For the reasons that follow, Overton’s motion is denied. BACKGROUND The facts are set out in this Court’s prior decision, In re Old Carco LLC, 593 B.R. 182 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2018) (“Overton I”), the District Court’s decision affirming Overton I, see Overton v. FCA US LLC (In re Old Carco LLC), 603 B.R. 877 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (“Overton II”), and the Second Circuit’s decision affirming Overton II, see Graham v. FCA US LLC (In re Old Carco LLC), 809 F. App’x. 36 (2d Cir. 2020) (“Overton III”) (summary order). I assume familiarity with those decisions and limit the background discussion to the facts relevant to the disposition of the Motion. On April 30, 2009, Old Carco LLC (“Old Chrysler”) filed these chapter 11 cases. On June 1, 2009, the Court approved a sale order (the “Sale Order”) and master transaction agreement (the “MTA”) by which Old Chrysler sold substantially all of its assets to New Chrysler free and clear of any claims against Old Chrysler except for certain Assumed Liabilities. The MTA was eventually amended (Amendment No. 4) to extend New Chrysler’s Assumed Liabilities to include product liability claims for personal injuries or wrongful death arising from post-Closing accidents involving vehicles manufactured and sold by Old Chrysler (“Old Chrysler Vehicles”) before June 10, 2009, the Closing Date of the sale transaction. However, Amendment No. 4 expressly excluded liability for punitive damages. The Sale Order did not limit New Chrysler’s liability for its own post-Closing wrongful conduct involving an Old Chrysler Vehicle, such as the breach of an independent duty, if any, imposed on New Chrysler to warn about a defect in an Old Chrysler Vehicle or recall it. Overton I, 593 B.R. at 199. A. Alabama Litigation On June 10, 2016, Sue Ann Graham and her child, J.G., a minor, were riding as passengers in a 2002 Jeep Liberty, an Old Chrysler Vehicle, when it was struck by another vehicle. Sue Ann Graham was killed as a result of the accident; J.G. was seriously injured but survived. On October 17, 2017, Frankie Overton, as administrator of the estate of Sue Ann Graham (“Decedent”), and Scott Graham, as legal guardian of J.G., filed the Complaint in Alabama State Court against, among others, New Chrysler. As to the Decedent, Overton sought punitive damages under the AWDA, the only available remedy for wrongful death under Alabama law. While the Complaint mainly asserted that the Jeep was defectively manufactured, the plaintiffs also alleged that the “Product Liability Defendants,” a term that included New Chrysler, had failed to warn about or recall the allegedly defective Jeep. (Complaint
