Source: https://trellis.law/ca/motion-type/motion-for-prejudgment-interest-205
Timestamp: 2020-07-15 05:30:25
Document Index: 650237025

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3287', '§ 32870', '§ 3289', '§ 657', '§ 3287', '§1285', '§ 3287', '§ 3287', '§ 3288', '§ 3291', '§ 3291', '§ 998', '§ 998', '§ 3291', '§ 3288']

What is a Motion for Prejudgment Interest?
Prejudgment interest compensates a plaintiff for the loss of the use of property or money during the period before a judgment is entered. (Segura v. McBride (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1041.) “It is commonly recognized that prejudgment interest represents the accretion of wealth that particular property could have produced during a period of loss.” (Newby v. Vroman (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 283, 289.) “It is well established that prejudgment interest is not a cost, but an element of damages.” (N. Oakland Med. Clinic v. Rogers (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 824, 830.)
Prejudgment interest may be awarded even if it is not specifically authorized by the statute underlying plaintiff’s claims. (County of Solano v. Lionsgate Corp. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 741, 752.) However, it may not be awarded if the statute implicitly precludes an award of prejudgment interest. (Imperial Merchant Services, Inc. v. Hunt (2009) 47 Cal.4th 381, 384.)
An award of prejudgment interest is required when the damages are “certain” or “capable of being made certain by calculation.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 3287(a); Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Prods. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 163, 174-175; Thompson v. Asimos (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 970, 991.)
An award of prejudgment interest may also be made on unliquidated amounts. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 32870.) Such awards are discretionary with the court; in deciding whether to exercise its discretion, the court “must consider the circumstances, realizing a party cannot pay the amount due until it is determined what that amount was.” (Union Paciﬁc Railroad Company v. Santa Fe Paciﬁc Pipelines, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App,4‘h 134, 203.)
In absence of a contractual rate of interest, the rate of prejudgment interest is 10% per annum. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 3289(b).) Interest commences on the first day there exists both a breach and a liquidated claim. (Maurice L. Bein, Inc. v. Housing Auth. of City of Los Angeles (1958) 157 Cal.App.2d 670, 686, 321 P.2d 753, 762-763.)
No statutes specify the precise timing or mechanism for seeking prejudgment interest, and no rule of court delineates when prejudgment interest must be sought. (Watson Bowman Acme Corp. v. RGW Constr. Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 279, 297-98.) Nevertheless, the California Court of Appeal has held that when interest is not awarded in the original judgment, a post-trial request for prejudgment interest should be sought in a motion for a new trial under CCP § 657 on the ground of inadequate damages. (North Oakland Medical Clinic v. Rogers (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 824, 830-31; Steiny & Co. v. Cal. Elec. Supply Co. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 285, 294.)
The Certainty Requirement
From the defendant’s perspective, the certainty requirement promotes equity because liability for prejudgment interest occurs only when the defendant knows or can calculate the amount owed and does not pay. (Chesapeake Industries, Inc. v. Togova Enterprises, Inc. (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 901, 906 [197 Cal. Rptr. 348].)
Courts generally apply a liberal construction of “certainty” (Chesapeake Indus., Inc. v. Togova Enterprises, Inc. (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 901, 907.) The test for determining “certainty” is whether defendant actually knows the amount owed or could have computed the amount from reasonably available information. (Children’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v. Bonta (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 740, 774, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 629, 654; Howard v. American Nat’l Fire Ins. Co. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 498, 535, 115 Cal.Rptr.3d 42, 47.) Where the amount of damages cannot be resolved except by verdict or judgment, prejudgment interest is not appropriate. (Wisper Corp. v. California Commerce Bank (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 948, 960, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 141, 148; Lineman v. Schmid (1948) 32 Cal.2d 204, 212, 195 P.2d 408, 413.) A dispute over liability does not preclude a finding of certainty if the amount of damages is clear. (Olson v. Cory (1983) 35 Cal.3d 390, 402, 197 Cal.Rptr. 843, 851-852.)
Useful Rulings on Motion for Prejudgment Interest
ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY VS MICHAEL EHRENFELD COMPANY ET AL
I. MOTION FOR OFFSET “Where a release, dismissal with or without prejudice, or a covenant not to sue or not to enforce judgment is given in good faith before verdict or judgment to one or more of a number of tortfeasors claimed to be liable for the same tort, or to one or more other co-obligors mutually subject to contribution rights, it shall have the following effect: (a) It shall not discharge...
..ecovery, collecting part of his total claim from one joint tortfeasor and all of his claim from another.” (Reed v. Wilson (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 439, 444.) It is “proper to exclude evidence of the pretrial settlement by one joint tortfeasor from the jury's consideration, leaving it to the court to apply Code of Civil Procedure section 877 to reduce the verdict.” (Knox v. County of Los Angeles (“Kn...
BRENT, FIOL & PRATT, LLP VS. MAUREEN LAPIERRE
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: NOTICE OF MOTION — MOTION FOR AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENT TO INCLUDE AWARD OF COSTS, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST AND POST JUDGMENT INTEREST [PLTF] BRENT, FIOL & PRATT, LLP RULING Plaintiffs unopposed motion to amend the judgment to include costs and both prejudgment and postjudgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth below. Defendant did not move to tax or strike Plain...
..nt interest compensates a plaintiff for the loss of the use of property or money during the period before the judgment is entered. Under Civil Code section 3287(8), an award of prejudgment interest is required when the damages are “certain” or “capable of being made certain by calculation.” Unlike prejudgment interest under section 3287(a), an award of prejudgment interest on unliquidated amounts...
CACIQUE INC VS PROCTOR INDUSTRIAL INVESTORS LLC
Cacique, Inc. v. Proctor Industrial Investors, LLC MOTION FOR AN ORDER AWARDING ACCRUED AND PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES MOVING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Proctor Industrial Investors, LLC RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Cacique, Inc. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: Plaintiff buyer alleges that Defendant seller has breached an agreement for...
..r Industrial Investors, LLC moves for an order awarding accrued and pre-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees. TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Proctor Industrial Investors, LLC’s motion for accrued and pre-judgment interest in the sum of $104,936.82 is GRANTED. Proctor’s motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED in the amount of $249,062.50, which the Court finds to be the amount of...
Charles E Saccio vs Antonio R Romasanta
Nature of Proceedings: Motion: Prejudgment Interest TENTATIVE RULING: For the reasons set forth herein, the motion of plaintiff Charles E. Saccio for award and determination of prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code section 3291 is granted in part and denied in part. The court awards prejudgment interest in the amount of $11,035.95. Background: On April 27, 2015, plaintiff Charles E. Sacc...
..lic policy, (6) defamation, (7) unfair business practices, and (8) declaratory relief. On June 25, 2015, counsel for Saccio served an offer to compromise pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998 on counsel for Romasanta in the amount of $125,000. (Secrest decl., ¶ 4 & exhibit A.) There was no response to the offer by Romasanta and the offer was rejected as a matter of law. (Secrest decl.,...
Stanley Klein et al vs Jen McCormick
Nature of Proceedings: Motion Confirm Costs/Determine Prejudgment Interest Motion to Confirm Costs, Determine Prejudgment Interest, and Set Attorney’s Fees RULING Plaintiffs’ motion to confirm costs, determine prejudgment interest, and fix attorney’s fees is granted as set forth herein. Plaintiffs are awarded costs in the amount of $705.00 and attorney’s fees in the amount of $26,026....
..detainer action. Trial was held on June 25, 2013. Defendant failed to appear for trial and judgment was entered in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant. Plaintiffs were awarded past-due rent of $9,780.00, prejudgment interest, costs, and attorney’s fees. Possession was not an issue because defendant had previously vacated the property. Plaintiffs now move for an order fixing the costs, p...
Marcela Mejia vs Anna Vu
Having reviewed and considered the parties' supplemental briefs on Defendant's Amended Motion to Tax Costs, and for the reasons explained below, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion in part. Following the Court's ruling on Defendant's Motions for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and New Trial, the parties submitted their supplemental briefs on the motion to tax. (ROA 163, 164.) Plaintiff assert...
.., her request to tax all costs and prejudgment interest sought under section 998 should be granted. Specifically, that certain expert fees ($9,850.00), deposition fees ($1,200.00) and prejudgment interest ($32,668.96) all must be taxed because the basis for Plaintiff seeking those costs – the 998 Offer – no longer applies. She also asks the Court to tax all exhibit costs ($1,264.47) because they w...
Recent Rulings on Motion for Prejudgment Interest
Civil - Limited (15)
Civil - Unlimited (62)
Motion Hearing (Civil) (99)
Alan G. Perkins (19)
Daniel S. Murphy (11)
David Sotelo (29)
Denise Debellefeuille (9)
Frederick C. Shaller (22)
Gail Ruderman Feuer (16)
Katherine Bacal (28)
Marc Marmaro (24)
Matthew P. Guasco (14)
Michael P. Linfield (34)
Patricia D. Nieto (13)
Rafael A. Ongkeko (23)
Randolph M. Hammock (31)
Richard J. Burdge (12)
Ronald L. Styn (15)
Sandra L Mclean (1)
Tamara L Mosbarger (9)
Teresa A. Beaudet (79)
Timothy M. Casserly (12)
Timothy Taylor (14)
William D. Stewart (16)
Yolanda Orozco (27)
Contra Costa County, CA (31)
Los Angeles County, CA (701)
San Diego County, CA (170)
San Francisco County, CA (38)
Santa Barbara County, CA (110)
Ventura County, CA (86)
Prejudgment interest commences on the date of breach, not the date the loans were made. (Watson Bowman Acme Corp. v. RGW Construction, Inc. (2015) 2 Cal.App.5th 279, 293.) Plaintiff seeks interest from August 24, 2015 on the third loan agreement, which is the date the loan agreement was made. ANALYSIS Yes (10/26/18) Default Entered. (JC Form CIV-100.)
Plaintiff incorrectly put the annual interest amount for “prejudgment interest” and did not add the amount in the total compensatory damages. The $39,433.33 amount in interest should rather be included as part of the total compensatory damages. Further, it is unclear from her statement whether she is pursuing prejudgment interest amounts at all. See Civ. Code, § 3287; North Oakland Medical Clinic v.
Petitioner also seeks prejudgment interest, costs, and attorney’s fees. Legal standard “Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award.” (Code Civ. Proc., §1285.) The petition must “(a) [s]et forth the substance of or have attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate unless the petitioner denies the existence of such an agreement. (b) Set forth the names of the arbitrators.
Pre-Judgment Interest California Civil Code § 3287 provides for prejudgment interest for damages that are certain or capable of being made certain by calculation. (See Civ. Code § 3287(a).)
Plaintiffs to submit a revised judgment that reflects the new prejudgment interest amounts.
Defendants also argue that Plaintiff cannot recover prejudgment interest because the TAC does not allege a specific amount or “facts suggesting the damages could be calculated with certainty from any particular date[.]” (Motion at p. 8.) However, prejudgment interest may give given, at the discretion of the jury, in cases of fraud. (Civ. Code, § 3288.) Because Plaintiff’s fraud claim survives demurrer, it provides a basis for seeking prejudgment interest.
Furthermore, prejudgment interest for “costs” (copying and property damage) are not allowable costs. (CCP § 3291; Bean v. Pacific coast Elevator Corp. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1423, 1429-31.) Therefore, the total costs claimed by the Plaintiff ($14,073.85) are reduced by the total of the amounts described above totaling $2246.68. Based upon the reduction for the disallowed costs discussed above, The total allowable costs are reduced to a total of $11,827.17.
Plaintiff may submit an amended judgment showing unpaid prejudgment interest up to the date of the Judgment and an amended total judgment. Attorney Fees Plaintiff requests attorney fees in the total amount of $1,420.68. Kavitz attests that Plaintiff requests attorney fees pursuant to the Agreement, which provides that Defendant will pay all expenses in connection with enforcement of the Agreement, including attorney fees. (Kavitz Decl. ¶¶ 13-15.)
Moreover, there were several post judgment motions relating to fees and costs, and no amount of prejudgment interest was litigated in any of those motions. Plaintiff did not submit any calculation of prejudgment interest to be included in the Judgment. None of the rulings of the court included amounts for prejudgment interest. As the “damages” awarded were restitution, Plaintiff has not cited authority entitling her to prejudgment interest.
On March 10, 2020 an “Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Costs and Prejudgment Interest” was filed; that day, an Amended Judgment was filed. On March 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed and mail-served a Notice of Entry of Amended Judgment.
Item 16 – GRANTED (Tax $119,498.79) Plaintiff seeks prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code § 3291, which allows a plaintiff to recover interest on the judgment at a rate of 10 percent per annum calculated from the date of plaintiff’s first offer, if plaintiff makes a CCP § 998 offer that the defendant does not accept and plaintiff obtains a more favorable judgment. Since Plaintiff’s CCP § 998 Offer is invalid, Plaintiff is not entitled to recover prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code § 3291.
Motion to Strike WWP moves to strike RAW’s requests for prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees. Attorneys’ fees are recoverable “only when specifically authorized by statute, contract, or law.” (Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection. v. LeBrock (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1137, 1140.) RAW has not adequately pled a basis for attorneys’ fees. As to prejudgment interest, Civil Code §§ 3288 and 3287(a), cited by both parties, allows the potential recovery of prejudgment interest.
COMERICA BANK, A TEXAS CORPORATION VS CARLOS H. MONTENEGRO, M.D., INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
Plaintiff seeks judgment in the total amount of $63,134.88, comprising $39,641.24 demanded in the Complaint, $982.98 in late fees, $20,188.25 in prejudgment interest, $1,579.24 in attorney fees, and $743.17 in costs. The Court notes a number of defects with the submitted default judgment package. Plaintiff has not provided complete interest calculations pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a)(3).
GRABEL CHINO HILLS, LLC VS JESUS P. SARABIA, ET AL.
Plaintiff seeks judgment in the total amount of $318,885.41, comprising $298,498.46 demanded in the Complaint, $11,631.99 in prejudgment interest, $8,119.96 in attorney fees, and $635 in costs. The Court notes a number of defects with the submitted default judgment package. First, Plaintiff failed to include the mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Form CIV-100) setting forth the basis for his request for default judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a).)
VERTAFORE, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION VS KLOOMA HOLDING INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
., Plaintiff’s performance, Defendant Klooma Holdings, Inc.’s breach, and Plaintiff’s damages, inclusive of prejudgment interest, attorneys fees and costs. The default judgment as to Defendant Klooma Holdings Inc. is GRANTED as requested. However, as to Defendant Klooma Originals Inc. (Doe 1) (“Originals”) and Defendant Gary Merisier (“Merisier”), the declaration of Maggie Warren does not attest to entry into any contract with Originals or Merisier.
TEAM YOUNG, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS CHIOU INVESTMENTS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
(b), a request for default prejudgment interest on a contractual matter is 10% unless otherwise provided by the contract between the parties. Here, Plaintiff asserts interest in the amount of $9,696.00. (Decl. of Interest, p. 2.) Interest is calculated in the amount of 10% per annum for a period of 30 months, beginning on March 26, 2017. (Decl. of Interest, p. 2.) Plaintiff’s invoice, however, states that the original invoice date was May 30, 2017. (Complaint, Exh. B.)
ALEXANDER NABIL BASSILY, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC
The Court notes that in Kia’s reply, Kia includes an additional request to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer for prejudgment interest. Because this request was not contained in Kia’s moving papers, the Court declines to consider its merits. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court sustains Kia’s demurrer in part and overrules Kia’s demurrer in part. The demurrer to the fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action is sustained with leave to amend.
DA NEIBRU LAND AND DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC V. WESTERN AG &TURF, INC.
Explanation: Defendant moves to strike the prayer for prejudgment interest, contending that Civil Code section 3288 only permits an award of prejudgment interest in actions not arising from contract, and that Civil Code section 3287, subdivision (a), only allows prejudgment interest where the damages are certain or capable of being made certain by calculation.
Default is entered in the amount of $36,019.11 consisting of $32,068.56 in damages, $1,897.76 in prejudgment interest, $1,000.00 in attorney fees, and $675.00 in costs. Plaintiff must e-file a corrected proposed judgment prior to the hearing. The parties are strongly encouraged to attend all scheduled hearings by telephone or CourtCall. All social distancing protocols will be observed at the Courthouse and in the courtrooms.
ZEINA PRIETO VS RAYMOND M TASH D D S ET AL
Rather, they simply selected the amount [plaintiff] had claimed as damages in the underlying lawsuit, plus prejudgment interest, attorney fees, and costs…. [h]ere, the judgment could have been enforceable if it had been designed to encourage [defendant] to make its settlement payments on time, and to compensate [plaintiff] for its loss of use of the money plus its reasonable costs in pursuing the payment.
BOHM WILDISH, LLP V. TERESA ROEBUCK, TRUSTEE OF THE SHELL BEACH TRUST SETTLEMENT
The principal amount of the judgment was $100,000, plus prejudgment interest of $35,866.60, attorney’s fees pursuant to motion to be filed, costs pursuant to a memorandum of costs to be filed. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 917.1, subdivision (b), one and one-half times the amount of the judgment is $203,799.90, and two times the amount of the judgment is $271,733.20.
MUFG UNION BANK V. CREEGAN + D’ANGELO, ET AL.
Judgment shall be entered for Plaintiff and against Defendants Creegan + D’Angelo and Jones for a total sum of $71,496.79, consisting of $70,845.59 in principal and $651.20 in accrued prejudgment interest and $12,522 in fees and costs pursuant to that agreement. These amounts represent the sums agreed to in the settlement agreement, less the payments made prior to the default.
Default judgment is entered in the amount of $34,250.15 consisting of $30,256.88 in damages, $2,087.56 in prejudgment interest, $1,300.71 in attorney fees, and $505.00 in costs. Plaintiff must file a corrected proposed judgment prior to the hearing. Parties are strongly encouraged to attend all scheduled hearings via telephone or CourtCall. All social distancing protocols will be followed in the Courthouse and the courtroom.
EXCEL RESIDENTIAL SERVICES INC ET AL VS JOSEPH S KIM ET AL
Similarly, Plaintiffs set forth the total damages requested, noting that the total is “inclusive of prejudgment interest.” But to conform to Form JUD-100, prejudgment interest should still be specified by percentage and amount. Third, Plaintiffs did not provide any evidence proving up their damages.
FORWARDLINE FINANCIAL, LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS WC FENCING & BOBCAT SERVICES CORP, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL.
The Russian Judgment does not provide for prejudgment interest. (See Compl., Exh. 6.) So, Plaintiff is not entitled to prejudgment interest. Thus, Defendant’s motion to strike on this ground is granted. Based on the foregoing, the Court strikes Plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief, ¿ 3 of the Complaint. 3. Leave to Amend Plaintiff has 20 days’ leave to amend the Complaint pursuant to this Court order.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 57 next last »