Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04032/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04032-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 07:499 Agricultural Commodities Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

C. H. ROBINSON CO.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MARINA PRODUCE CO.; DOMINIC

MONTALBANO AND DONNA

RODRIGUEZ,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-04032 WHA

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL

PREJUDGMENT INTEREST

INTRODUCTION

This is a motion to amend a default judgment to add more prejudgment interest.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff alleged breach of the statutory trust established under the Perishable

Agricultural Commodities Act (“PACA”), 7 U.S.C. 499e(c). On March 13, 2006, default

judgment was entered against defendant Marina Produce Co. for the principal amount of

$23,814.55, for attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,200.00 and for costs in the amount of

$558.00. Post-judgment interest was awarded to the extent allowed by 28 U.S.C. 1961. 

Plaintiff also moved for prejudgment interest in the amount of $5,117.88. The Court held that

plaintiff was entitled to prejudgment interest. Plaintiff did not, however, cite any authority

supporting its request for interest to be assessed at an apparent rate of ten percent. The request

for an award of prejudgment interest, therefore, was denied. Plaintiff now moves again for

prejudgment interest and submits authority in support of the amount of $5,117.88. 

Case 3:05-cv-04032-WHA Document 27 Filed 04/28/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff asserts that it should be awarded prejudgment interest at a rate of ten percent —

an amount of $5,117.88. Plaintiff contends that “the Secretary of Agriculture for the United

States Department of Agriculture has concluded that ten percent (10%) is a reasonable rate for

an award of damages under PACA” (Br. 3). In support of its argument, plaintiff has submitted

copies of reparation decisions from the Secretary of Agriculture. The decisions date from 1998

to 2006. In each decision the Secretary summarily concluded that ten percent was a reasonable

rate for an award of damages under PACA. On the other hand, the Ninth Circuit has held that:

[T]he interest rate prescribed . . . under 28 U.S.C. 1961 is

appropriate for fixing the rate of prejudgment interest unless the

trial judge finds, on substantial evidence, that the equities of that

particular case require a different rate.

* * *

[P]rejudgment interest is intended to cover the lost investment

potential of funds to which the plaintiff was entitled, from the time

of entitlement to the date of judgment.

Nelson v. EG & G Energy Measurements Group, Inc., 37 F.3d 1384, 1391 (9th Cir. 1994)

(citation omitted) (emphasis added).

Plaintiff has failed to show “substantial evidence, that the equities of [this] particular

case” require a different rate from that prescribed by 28 U.S.C. 1961. It is unclear how the

reparation decisions submitted by plaintiff relate to this “particular case.” Nothing in the record

demonstrates that plaintiff’s “lost investment potential” was at a rate other than that prescribed

by 28 U.S.C. 1961.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion for additional prejudgment interest at a rate of ten percent — an

amount of $5,117.88 is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2006. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04032-WHA Document 27 Filed 04/28/06 Page 2 of 2