Nelson v. PTI Group, Inc. et al

Filing 44

JUDGMENT in favor of Jeff Nelson against Active Marketing Group, Inc. and PTI Group, Inc. Signed by Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren on February 3, 2010. (tg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION JEFF NELSON V. PTI GROUP, INC., ET AL. JUDGMENT This case was called for trial on January 11, 2010. Plaintiff appeared and was represented by Stephen Lee Wood. Defendants appeared by Todd Grisoff, a duly authorized officer of both Defendants; defendants were represented by Jonathan C. Miesen. A jury of eight members was empaneled and sworn. Witnesses were sworn, testimony was given, exhibits were received into evidence, the jury was instructed on the law applicable to this case, and counsel made their arguments to the jury. After due deliberation, the jury returned the following Verdict on January 12, 2010, which the Court found to be in regular form: INTERROGATORY NO 1: Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that plaintiff has proven his claim for breach of contract? YES NO X NO. 09-5034 DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF

1/12/09 (sic) Date

/s/ (name of foreperson redacted) Foreperson INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

State the amount of damages that you find reasonably and fairly compensate plaintiff for the unpaid commissions: $73,029.78 1/12/09 (sic) Date /s/ (name of foreperson redacted) Foreperson

Neither party asked that the jury be polled after its Verdict was returned. It is, therefore, considered, ordered, and adjudged that Plaintiff is awarded Judgment against Defendants, jointly and separately, for $73,029.78, pre-judgment interest1 on this amount at the annual rate of six percent (6%) from January 22, 2009 until the date this Judgment is entered, Plaintiff's costs, and post-judgment interest at the annual rate of .31% from the date this Judgment is entered until it is paid in full. IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of February, 2010. /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren JIMM LARRY HENDREN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

T h e defendants object to an award of pre-judgment interest, s p e c i f i c a l l y arguing that the plaintiff did not plead a claim for prejudgment i n t e r e s t or "even request an award of prejudgment interest in his Complaint." However, the plaintiff's complaint includes a prayer for "[a]ll other relief t o which he proves himself entitled." As stated in City of North Kansas City, M o . v. Sharp, 414 F.2d 359, 369 (8 th Cir. 1969), "[c]learly, interest q u a l i f i e s as `proper relief.'"

1