Salvador Navarro. DHL Global Forwarding et al

Filing 104

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT INTEREST 96 by Judge Christina A. Snyder. Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiff's motion for prejudgment interest on the jury award for past lost wages. Plaintiff is hereby directed to submit a proposedjudgment. IT IS SO ORDERED. (lom)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 
Title 

O

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
CV15-5510-CAS(Ex)
Date December 22, 2017
SALVADOR NAVARRO V. DHL GLOBAL FORWARDING ET AL.

Present: The Honorable 

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: 

N/A 

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Defendants: 

N/A 

N/A 

Connie Lee 
Deputy Clerk 

Proceedings:  

Not Present 
Court Reporter / Recorder

(IN CHAMBERS) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT
INTEREST (Dkt. 96, filed October 23, 2017)

Before the Court is plaintiff Salvador Navarro’s motion for prejudgment interest on
the jury’s damages award for past lost wages in this wrongful termination action. Dkt. 96
(“Mot.”). Defendant DHL Global Forwarding opposes the motion on the ground that
plaintiff’s damages for lost wages for the years 2013 through 2017 were not readily
ascertainable at the time of his termination on July 26, 2013. Dkt. 97 (“Opp’n”). For the
following reasons, the Court denies plaintiff’s motion.
Federal courts have discretion to award prejudgment interest for backpay.
Domingo v. New England Fish Co., 727 F.2d 1429, 1446 (9th Cir. 1984). “In diversity
cases, state law governs the award of prejudgment interest.” Davis & Cox v. Summa
Corp., 751 F.2d 1507, 1522 (9th Cir. 1985). Under California law, prejudgment interest
is recoverable in any action in which damages are “certain, or capable of being made
certain by calculation” and the “right to recover . . . is vested in the [plaintiff] upon a
particular day.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3287(a). The test for determining certainty under §
3287(a) is “whether defendant actually knows the amount owed or from reasonably
available information could . . . have computed that amount.” Roodenburg v. Pavestone
Co., L.P., 171 Cal. App. 4th 185, 191 (2009). In the employment context, the “fact that
the amount of backpay is not readily determinable weighs against awarding prejudgment
interest.” Domingo, 727 F.2d at 1446. In addition, a large disparity between the amount
of damages demanded by the plaintiff and the size of the award militates against a finding
of certainty. Wisper Corp. v. California Commerce Bank, 49 Cal. App. 4th 948, 961
(1996) (plaintiff not entitled to prejudgment interest where defendant found liable for 25
percent of claimed damages).

CV-549 (01/17)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 
Title 

O

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
CV15-5510-CAS(Ex)
Date December 22, 2017
SALVADOR NAVARRO V. DHL GLOBAL FORWARDING ET AL.

On May 17, 2017, the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff and awarded him
$1,530,000 in damages, including $300,000 in past lost wages. Dkt. 83. At trial, plaintiff
testified that he was paid $25.52 per hour and that his total compensation varied from
year to year depending on the number of hours worked and whether he received overtime
pay. Opp’n, Ex. 1 at 4–5. Plaintiff testified that he earned $80,658.35 in 2010,
$89,587.17 in 2011, $80,195.46 in 2012, and approximately $53,000 in 2013 before he
was terminated. Id. at 4–6. In closing, plaintiff’s counsel indicated that plaintiff was
paid $51,473 for the first 29 weeks of 2013, and accordingly estimated that plaintiff
would have earned $48,802 for the remainder of 2013. Opp’n, Ex. 2 at 4. Counsel
emphasized that plaintiff “does not have to prove . . . the exact amount of damages . . .
with any kind of precision.” Based on plaintiff’s earnings from 2011 through 2013,
counsel indicated that his average yearly compensation was $87,428. Plaintiff was
unemployed for a year and a half following his termination, and when plaintiff was rehired, he earned only $13 per hour. Based on these figures and estimates, counsel
extrapolated that plaintiffs lost wages were $40,802 for 2013, $87,428 for 2014, $63,428
for 2015, and $63,428 for 2016––totaling $255,086. Id. at 4–6. The jury awarded
$300,000 for past lost wages, approximately 15 percent more than the amount requested.
The California Constitution provides that, in the absence of any legislative act to
the contrary, the rate of prejudgment interest is seven percent. Cal. Const., art. XV, § 1.
Accordingly, plaintiff seeks prejudgment interest on the $300,000 jury award at a rate of
seven percent per annum, simple interest (not compounded), from the date of termination,
July 26, 2013, until the date judgment is entered. Mot. at 8. Defendant argues that an
award of prejudgment interest is not appropriate here because plaintiff’s anticipated lost
wages from mid-2013 through 2017 were not readily determinable or capable of being
computed from the information available to defendant when plaintiff was terminated on
July 26, 2013. Opp’n at 3–4. Based on plaintiff’s proposed damages calculations and the
substantial disparity between the amount of damages requested and the jury award, the
Court agrees that the lost-wages damages measure would not have been readily
ascertainable to defendant on the date of plaintiff’s termination. Plaintiff’s total
compensation varied considerably from year to year because he did not have a guaranteed
salary level. Defendant also had no way of knowing whether and when plaintiff would
be hired by a different employer following his termination nor what his future
compensation would be. Accordingly, any potential recoverable damages could not be
“certain or capable of being made certain by calculation.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3287(a).
Plaintiff has not demonstrated that defendant “actually [knew] the amount owed or from
reasonably available information could . . . have computed that amount” such that his lost

CV-549 (01/17)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 
Title 

O

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
CV15-5510-CAS(Ex)
Date December 22, 2017
SALVADOR NAVARRO V. DHL GLOBAL FORWARDING ET AL.

wages were certain for the purposes of awarding prejudgment interest. Roodenburg, 171
Cal. App. 4th at 191.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion for prejudgment interest on the
jury award for past lost wages. Plaintiff is hereby directed to submit a proposed
judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of Preparer

CV-549 (01/17)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

: 
00 
                        CL 

00 

Page 3 of 3