Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-00031/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-00031-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

OMNI FINANCIAL, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

GLOBAL PETROLEUM, LLC, a 

Minnesota limited liability company; 

SUZETTE JEREZ, aka SUZETTE JEREZNEAL; EDWARD FORTE, Individually 

and as Trustee of the Forte Family Trust; 

and PRECISE CONSTRUCTION & 

DISMANTLEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., an 

Illinois corporation doing business as 

PRECISE CONSTRUCTION,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-00031-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF 

AMENDED DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

AGAINST DEFENDANTS EDWARD 

FORTE AND PRECISE 

CONSTRUCTION & 

DISMANTLEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., 

AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT

[Re: ECF 46]

On October 31, 2019, the Court issued an order granting default judgment in favor of 

Plaintiff Omni Financial, LLC (“Omni”) and against Defendants Edward Forte (“Forte”) and 

Precise Construction & Dismantlement Systems, Inc. (“Precise Construction”). See Order 

Granting Motion for Default Judgment, ECF 44. The Court entered a Default Judgment against 

Forte and Precise Construction in the amount of “$1,375,000 plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and 

costs subject to proof,” and it directed Omni to submit a supplemental brief regarding attorneys’ 

fees and costs along with a proposed amended default judgment. See Order Granting Motion for 

Default Judgment, ECF 44; Default Judgment, ECF 45. Omni submitted a supplemental brief and 

a proposed amended judgment on November 13, 2019. See Supplemental Brief, ECF 46; 

Proposed Amended Judgment, ECF 46-1.

Omni’s supplemental brief and attached billing records establish that reasonable attorneys’ 

fees in the amount of $15,872.50, and reasonable costs in the amount of $825.24, were expended 

in litigating Omni’s claims against Forte and Precise Construction. The Court AWARDS 

Case 5:19-cv-00031-BLF Document 47 Filed 11/14/19 Page 1 of 2
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

attorneys’ fees in the amount of $15,872.50 and costs in the amount of $825.24, for a total award 

of attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $16,697.74 against Defendants Forte and Precise 

Construction. The Court will enter an amended default judgment reflecting that award

concurrently with this order. 

Omni’s proposed amended judgment provides for post-judgment interest “at the statutory 

rate of 10.0% per annum.” See Proposed Amended Judgment, ECF 46-1. Presumably, the 

referenced “statutory rate” is the California statutory rate of “10 percent per annum on the 

principal amount of a money judgment remaining unsatisfied.” Cal. Civ. P. Code § 685.010(a). 

However, post-judgment interest in this case is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961, which provides that 

“[i]nterest shall be allowed on any money judgment in a civil case recovered in a district court,”

and that “[s]uch interest shall be calculated from the date of the entry of the judgment, at a rate 

equal to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield . . . for the calendar week 

preceding [ ] the date of the judgment.” 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). 

“An exception to § 1961 exists when the parties contractually agree to waive its 

application.” Fid. Fed. Bank, FSB v. Durga Ma Corp., 387 F.3d 1021, 1023 (9th Cir. 2004). 

Thus, where the parties execute an agreement containing “an express, mutually-agreed upon 

interest rate,” such rate may be awarded in lieu of the rate specified in § 1961. See id. A general 

choice-of-law clause in an agreement is not sufficient to displace § 1961, however. See id. In the 

present case, Omni has not directed the Court to any language in the guaranty contracts at issue 

that could be construed as waiving application of § 1961, and the Court has found no such 

language in reviewing those guaranty contracts. Accordingly, the Court AWARDS post-judgment 

interest at the federal statutory rate set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). The Court will include that 

award of post-judgment interest in the amended default judgment entered concurrently with this 

order.

Dated: November 14, 2019 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:19-cv-00031-BLF Document 47 Filed 11/14/19 Page 2 of 2