Court Opinion

ID: 9467998
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:01:28.530662+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:37.706764
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
(opinion May 1, 1981, 5th Cir. 1981, Slip Op. 6590)
Before CHARLES CLARK and GEE, Circuit Judges, and SPEARS*, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
In its petition for rehearing, Pulmosan argues that this Court erred when it amended the judgment to allow interest from the date of judicial demand. In this connection, Pulmosan correctly states that Byrd’s challenge with respect to the date fixed by the trial court for the commencement of interest came in a motion to remand, rather than in a cross-appeal; however, under the circumstances of this case, it makes no difference.
This appeal is from a final judgment, and interest from the date of judicial demand (October 17, 1977) is mandated by Louisiana law. Texaco v. Lirette, 410 F.2d 1064, 1067 (5th Cir. 1969); L.S.A.-R.S. 13:4203.
The motion to remand was filed on August 1, 1980, which was well within one year after the judgment was entered on December 20,1979, and we have treated the error in fixing the date of the judgment for the commencement of interest as a mistake, within the meaning of Rule 60(b)(1), F.R. Civ.P.
No useful purpose could have been served by remanding this case. On the contrary, wise judicial administration dictated that we deal finally with the appeal now. Cf. Hamilton v. Stillwell Van and Storage Co., 343 F.2d 453, 455 (3d Cir. 1965); Crosby v. Pacific S.S. Lines, 133 F.2d 470, 473-474 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 752, 63 S.Ct. 1166, 87 L.Ed. 1706 (1943). See also Huey v. Teledyne, Inc., 608 F.2d 1234, 1236-37 (9th Cir. 1979).
Finding no merit in either of Pulmosan’s two points of error, the petition for rehearing is DENIED.

 District Judge, of the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation.