Case ID: f-appx_84/html/0871-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

APPLIED COMPANIES, a California corporation, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. LOCKHEED MARTIN LIBRASCOPE, a business entity; Lockheed Martin Federal Systems, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 02-56610.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Dec. 5, 2003.
    Decided Dec. 18, 2003.
    Peter B. Jones, Esq., Jones and Donovan, Newport Beach, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Michael D. Newman, Esq., Steven P. Rice, Esq., Crowell & Moring, Irvine, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before BEEZER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
      The Honorable William W Schwarzer, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Federal law governs issues of prejudgment interest in federal question cases such as this. United States v. Pend Oreille Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 28 F.3d 1544, 1553 (9th Cir.1994).

The district court did not abuse its discretion, see Burgess v. Premier Corp., 727 F.2d 826, 838 (9th Cir.1984), by denying interest for the time preceding entry of the original judgment.

Nor did the district court err by denying interest for the period between entry of the original judgment and entry of the postremand judgment, as there was no provision for such interest in this court’s mandate. See Briggs v. Pa. R.R. Co., 334 U.S. 304, 306, 68 S.Ct. 1039, 92 L.Ed. 1403 (1948).

The district court did not err by setting postjudgment interest at the federal rate for the period beginning after entry of the postremand judgment, August 21, 2002, until the remaining balance of the judgmerit, $447,897.25 plus costs, was paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.