Court Opinion

ID: 9629841
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:50:53.67375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:29:12.758826
License: Public Domain

WAGNER, Chief Judge,
dissenting:
In my view, Cohen’s “Amended Remittitur Offer,” which was filed within ten days of the judgment, is in the nature of a motion to alter or amend judgment, and therefore should be treated as such. See Frain v. District of Columbia, 572 A.2d 447, 450 (D.C.1990) (“The nature of a motion is determined by the relief sought, not by its label or *389caption.”); Wallace v. Warehouse Employees Union No. 730, 482 A.2d 801, 804 (D.C.1984). Essentially, appellant sought by this pleading not only to withdraw his initial oral offer of remittitur, but also to have the court enter judgment in a reduced amount, explaining that “$1,964.85 is not recoverable.”1 The motion may best be characterized as one under Super.Ct.Civ.R. 59(e) because it requested alteration of the existing judgment. See Dyer v. William S. Bergman & Assocs., 635 A2d 1285, 1287 n. 4 (D.C.1993). A timely filed motion to alter or amend judgment, as this one was, tolls the running of the time for noting an appeal as to all parties.2 D.C App.R. 4(a)(2); Dyer, 635 A.2d at 1287 n. 4; see also Frain, 572 A2d at 449. Under this analysis, the appeal and cross-appeal would be timely; therefore, I would reach the merits of both appeals. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent from the decision of the court.3

.On July 21, 1993, judgment was entered for cross-appellant, Herman Cohen, in the amount of $60,000 in accordance with a juiy verdict. The judgment was docketed on July 22, 1993, and mailed to the parties on July 23, 1993. On July 27, 1993, Cohen filed an “Amended Remitti-tur Offer” agreeing to remit $1,964 of the judgment and to accept a judgment of $58,035.15. In support of the motion, Cohen stated that the complaint had prayed for prejudgment interest to which he was entitled pursuant to D.C.Code § 15-109 (1995), and that his attorney had not taken these facts into account when he offered orally to accept a reduced judgment of $47,900. Cohen also attached a supporting affidavit and a spreadsheet reflecting the calculation of interest. Cohen’s attorney also represented that he had spoken to the foreperson of the jury after the trial, with the court’s permission, and that she had indicated that the verdict included prejudgment interest.

. A motion to alter or amend judgment must be filed within ten days of the entry of judgment. Super.CtCiv.R. 59(e).

. Even under the majority’s disposition of the case, I see no impediment to the trial court on remand reducing the judgment by the amount to which Cohen agreed he was not entitled and entering judgment in the amount to which he consented, i.e., $58,035.15. See Donovan v. Penn Shipping Co., 429 U.S. 648, 649, 97 S.Ct. 835, 836, 51 L.Ed.2d 112 (1977) (“[A] plaintiff who has accepted a remittitur may not appeal to seek reinstatement of the original verdict.”).