Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-14-03394/USCOURTS-ca7-14-03394-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________

Nos. 14-3393 & 14-3394

DUAL-TEMP OF ILLINOIS, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

HENCH CONTROL, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellants.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 09 C 595 — Sharon Johnson Coleman, Judge.

____________________

ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CORRECT THE JUDGMENT

____________________

JANUARY 23, 2015

____________________

Before RIPPLE, MANION, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Dual-Temp of Illinois, Inc. sued the defendants for breach of contract. After a bench trial, the district 

court entered judgment in Dual-Temp’s favor and, in its 

memorandum opinion and order, held the defendants liable 

for “$113,500 plus interest accruing and attorneys’ fees.” 

Case: 14-3394 Document: 21 Filed: 01/23/2015 Pages: 3
2 Nos. 14-3393 & 14-3394

When entering the judgment on the docket, the district court 

checked the box indicating that no prejudgment interest 

would be awarded.

Twenty-eight days later, Dual-Temp filed a motion in the 

district court to “quantify interest based on the memorandum opinion and order.” The defendants filed these consolidated appeals the next day, and since the district court had 

not quantified prejudgment interest, this court ordered the 

parties to file memoranda explaining why the appeals

should not be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. See 

Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 175–76 (1989); 

Dynegy Marketing & Trade v. Multiut Corp., 648 F.3d 506, 513 

(7th Cir. 2011). While the parties were briefing that question, 

the district court addressed the motion to quantify, which 

the court construed as a motion to correct the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a). Explaining that it 

had intended to award prejudgment interest but had 

checked the wrong box on the judgment, the district court

directed Dual-Temp to move this court for leave to correct 

the clerical mistake. Dual-Temp thus filed a motion for leave 

to correct the judgment and later, after the defendants did 

not respond, moved for a ruling granting the motion. The 

defendants have now responded that, because the district 

court has clarified that it intended to award prejudgment interest, these appeals are premature.

We have reviewed the parties’ jurisdictional memoranda 

and the motions papers, and we conclude that there is no 

final judgment for the defendants to appeal. The award of 

prejudgment interest makes up part of a plaintiff’s damages.

See Osterneck, 489 U.S. at 175–76; Dynegy, 648 F.3d at 513; 

Kaszuk v. Bakery & Confectionary Union & Indus. Int’l Pension 

Case: 14-3394 Document: 21 Filed: 01/23/2015 Pages: 3
Nos. 14-3393 & 14-3394 3

Fund, 791 F.2d 548, 553 (7th Cir. 1986); Charles Alan Wright 

& Arthur R. Miller, 16A FED. PRAC. & PROC. JURIS. § 3949.1 

(4th ed.). And the district court must quantify damages before a judgment can be final. See Osterneck, 489 U.S. at 175–

76; Dynegy, 648 F.3d at 513; Kaszuk, 791 F.2d at 553; Holland v. 

Bibeau Constr. Co., — F.3d —, 2014 WL 7088168, at *4–5 (D.C. 

Cir. Dec. 16, 2014); Cook v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 618 F.3d 1127, 

1137 (10th Cir. 2010); Dieser v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 440 F.3d 920, 

923 (8th Cir. 2006); Marshak v. Treadwell, 240 F.3d 184, 190 (3d 

Cir. 2001). Even if the clerical mistake in the judgment were 

corrected so that the proper box is checked, the judgment 

still would not quantify prejudgment interest. Nor can we 

consider the judgment final on the ground that quantifying 

the prejudgment award is “mechanical and uncontroversial,” see Parks v. Pavkovic, 753 F.2d 1397, 1401–02 (7th Cir. 

1985); Holland, 2014 WL 7088168, at *4, for the district court 

did not address how it would quantify the award, and the 

defendants have not agreed that the amount proposed by 

Dual-Temp is appropriate.

Accordingly, these appeals are DISMISSED for lack of 

appellate jurisdiction, and the motions seeking leave to correct the judgment are DENIED as moot.

Case: 14-3394 Document: 21 Filed: 01/23/2015 Pages: 3