Opinion ID: 146651
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: prejudgment interest: sunken treasure?

Text: State law governs the award of prejudgment interest in diversity cases. Harris v. Mickel, 15 F.3d 428, 429 (5th Cir.1994) (citations omitted). In the absence of a statutory right to prejudgment interest, Texas law allows for an award of equitable prejudgment interest under Cavnar v. Quality Control Parking, Inc., 696 S.W.2d 549 (Tex.1985). Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Vacuum Tanks, Inc., 75 F.3d 1048, 1057 (5th Cir.1996). Under this standard, an equitable award of prejudgment interest should be granted to a prevailing plaintiff in all but exceptional circumstances. Id. (citation omitted). [4] Defendants point out that Meaux omitted from the pretrial order any request for interest. However, in diversity cases, it is not necessary for the plaintiff's pleadings to contain a prayer or other request for pre-judgment interest. Consol. Cigar Co. v. Tex. Commerce Bank, 749 F.2d 1169, 1174 (5th Cir.1985) (citations omitted). If state substantive law provides for the recovery of interest, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c) requires that such be included where appropriate. Id. ; see FED.R.CIV.P. 54(c) (Every [non-default] final judgment should grant the relief to which each party is entitled, even if the party has not demanded that relief in its pleadings.). When the pleadings contain a simple prayer for interest on the judgment, this suffices in any case to preserve the request. See Consol. Cigar, 749 F.2d at 1174-75; see also Crown Cent. Petrol. Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 768 F.2d 632, 638 (5th Cir.1985). Defendants' waiver argument is not entirely without support. See Lindy Inv., LP v. Shakertown Corp., 209 F.3d 802, 804 n. 1 (5th Cir.2000) (declining, without citing Rule 54(c), to consider appeal of denial of prejudgment interest because it was omitted from the pretrial order). However, under our rule of orderliness, we are obliged to follow our earlier decision in Consolidated Cigar. See Jacobs v. Nat'l Drug Intelligence Ctr., 548 F.3d 375, 378 (5th Cir.2008). Therefore, we hold that Meaux is not precluded from launching a sortie to recover prejudgment interest. Meaux and defendants disagree as to the proper standard of review. We need not address this question because the district court did not state reasons for denying interest, depriving us of any basis for review. Therefore, we must vacate the district court's denial of prejudgment interest and remand for further consideration of such request and a more detailed analysis. See Jauch v. Nautical Servs., Inc., 470 F.3d 207, 215 (5th Cir.2006); CenterPoint Energy Houston Elec. LLC v. Harris County Toll Road Auth., 436 F.3d 541, 550-51 (5th Cir.2006); Executone Info. Sys., Inc. v. Davis, 26 F.3d 1314, 1330 (5th Cir.1994) (If the district court denies prejudgment interest without explanation, our appropriate course is to remand the issue so that the court may either explain the exceptional circumstances warranting the denial of interest or award interest at the appropriate rate.) (citing Concorde Limousines, Inc. v. Moloney Coachbuilders, Inc., 835 F.2d 541, 549-50 (5th Cir.1987)).