Adler v. Relynet, Inc., et al.,

Filing 292

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 4/8/2010 ORDERING that Defendants' 250 motion for judgment as a matter of law and, in the alternative, motion for new trial is DENIED. (Duong, D)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

John P. Costello, Esq. (California State Bar No. 161511) Pamela W. Bertani, Esq. (California State Bar No. 182672) COSTELLO LAW CORPORATION 331 J Street, Suite 200 Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone No.: [phone] Fax No: [phone] Glenn W. Peterson, Esq. (California State Bar No. 126173) MILLSTONE PETERSON & WATTS, LLP 2267 Lava Ridge Court, Suite 210 Roseville, CA 95661 Telephone: [phone] Fax No: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Dustin K. Adler UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) WBS-PAN2:08-CV-01333-JAM-EFB Case No. (JFM) ) ) ORDER RE: MOTION TO AMEND Plaintiff, ) JUDGMENT vs. ) TO INCLUDE PREJUDGMENT ) INTEREST PURSUANT TO FRCP RELYNET, INC., a California Corporation, ) RULE 59(e) ) MICHAEL DICARLO, an individual, ) INTERNET BRAND, INC., a Delaware ) corporation, INTERMEDIA OUTDOORS, ) INC., a Delaware corporation, VORTEX ) Date: April 7, 2010 MEDIA GROUP, INC., a Delaware ) Time: 9:30 a.m. corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, ) Courtroom: 6 inclusively, ) ) Honorable John A. Mendez ) Defendants. _______________________________________) ) ) RELYNET, INC., a California Corporation, ) MICHAEL DICARLO, an individual, and ) DOES 1 through 50, inclusively, ) ) Counterclaimants, ) ) vs. ) ) DUSTIN K. ADLER, an individual, ) ) Counterdefendant. ) ) DUSTIN K. ADLER, an individual,

__

1 PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED ORDER RE: MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO INCLUDE PREJUDGMENT INTEREST PURSUANT TO FRCP RULE 59(e) PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiff's motion to amend the judgment under FRCP Rule 59(e) came on for hearing on April 7, 2010 on this Court's 9:30 calendar. The Court has considered the evidence admitted at trial, and the jury verdict rendered. It has also considered the underlying briefs and oral argument of counsel. The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated that an award of prejudgment interest is appropriate in this case, and now rules as follows: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to amend judgment to include prejudgment interest is GRANTED. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the judgment entered herein on February 8, 2010 ("Judgment") in the amount of $1,110,699.00 is ordered amended to include an award of prejudgment interest in the amount of $90,299. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the judgment entered on February 8, 2010 is hereby amended so that the total amount now due to Plaintiff from Defendants Michael DiCarlo and RelyNet, Inc. is $1,200,998.00. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.

Dated: April 8, 2010

/s/ John A. Mendez_________________ JOHN A. MENDEZ Judge of the United States District Court

-1PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED ORDER RE: MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT TO INCLUDE PREJUDGMENT INTEREST PURSUANT TO FRCP RULE 59(e) PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com