Robin Berman et al v. Microchip Technology Incorporated et al

Filing 119

JUDGMENT. ***Civil Case Terminated.***Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 10/18/2019. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ROBIN BERMAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10
11

v.

Case No. 17-cv-01864-HSG
JUDGMENT
Re: Dkt. Nos. 117, 118

MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY
INCORPORATED, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

Pending before the Court is a request for entry of judgment filed by Plaintiffs Robin

14

Berman, Bo Kang, Khashayar Mirfakhraei, Thang Van Vu, Donna Viera-Castillo, Girish Ramesh,

15

Patrick Hanley, Ilana Shternshain, and Mandy Schwarz, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

16

58(d). See Dkt. No. 117.

17

On March 22, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment.

18

See Dkt. No. 95. The Court concluded that (1) Plaintiffs were entitled to severance benefits under

19

ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B); and (2) Defendants were liable for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA

20

§ 502(a)(3). See id. at 9–13. The Court did not, however, assess what damages Plaintiffs may be

21

entitled to as a result of its ruling regarding liability. See id. at 14. The parties subsequently

22

stipulated to the amount of unpaid severance benefits owed each Plaintiff, and Plaintiffs filed a

23

motion for summary judgment seeking an additional ten percent per annum, as either an equitable

24

surcharge or prejudgment interest. See Dkt. No. 100 at 3–13. On September 3, 2019, the Court

25

denied Plaintiffs’ motion, finding that Plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence that would permit

26

the Court to award an equitable surcharge or prejudgment interest above the default interest rate

27

prescribed in 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). See Dkt. No. 112. Plaintiffs subsequently withdrew their

28

request for such a remedy. See Dkt. No. 115.

Defendants do not object to Plaintiffs’ request for entry of judgment, or their request for an

1
2

award of prejudgment interest in general. See Dkt. No. 118 at 1. However, the parties still

3

disagree as to the appropriate award of prejudgment interest. Compare Dkt. No. 117 with Dkt.

4

No. 118; Dkt. No. 104 at 7, n.2. Defendants reiterate that the default statutory rate is appropriate.

5

See Dkt. No. 118 at 3–4. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, suggest that a higher award may be

6

appropriate, although they still do not proffer any further evidence in support of this request, and

7

leave it to the Court’s discretion. See Dkt. No. 117 at 2–3. The Court finds no basis to reconsider

8

its ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment seeking an award of prejudgment interest at

9

a ten percent per annum rate, or otherwise depart from the interest rate prescribed in 28 U.S.C.

10

§ 1961(a).
Accordingly, all merits having been resolved and for good cause shown, judgment on

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Plaintiffs’ claims shall be and accordingly is entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants

13

for the following amounts:

14

•

Robin Berman – $57,984.94

15

•

Tom Vu – $63,390.59

16

•

Donna Vierra-Castillo – $67,177.98

17

•

Khashayar Mirfakhraei – $79,591.28

18

•

Bo Kang – $76,454.88

19

•

Girish Ramesh – $84,349.18

20

•

Patrick Hanley – $63,658.35

21

•

Mandy Schwarz – $72,286.25

22

•

Ilana Shternshain – $59,167.91

23

See Dkt. No. 100 at 3.
The Court also awards Plaintiffs prejudgment interest on the above amounts at the default

24
25

rate prescribed in 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a) of 1.63 %,1 compounded annually, which the Court

26
27
28

“[Prejudgment] interest shall be calculated from the date of the entry of the judgment, at a rate
equal to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar week preceding[] the date of the
judgment.” 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). The weekly average rate for the week ending October 11, 2019,
2
1

1

determines in its discretion to be fair and equitable based on all the circumstances of this case.

2

Each Plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest at this rate from the date of his or her termination

3

until the date of entry of this judgment. The parties have agreed that Plaintiffs’ termination dates

4

are as follows:
•

Robin Berman – April 6, 2016

6

•

Tom Vu – April 6, 2016

7

•

Donna Vierra-Castillo – April 6, 2016

8

•

Khashayar Mirfakhraei – April 6, 2016

9

•

Bo Kang – April 12, 2016

10

•

Girish Ramesh – May 20, 2016

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

•

Patrick Hanley – June 10, 2016

12

•

Mandy Schwarz – June 28, 2016

13

•

Ilana Shternshain – July 12, 2016

14
15

See Dkt. No. 100 at 3.
Plaintiffs are directed to file their motion for statutory attorneys’ fees and expenses

16

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1) no later than 30 days after the date of entry of this judgment.

17

This terminates Dkt. No. 117. The clerk is directed to close the case.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 10/18/2019
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

is 1.63% per annum. See www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/Choose.aspx?rel=H15
3