Watson et al v. Dillon Companies, Inc. et al
Filing
916
ORDER. ORDERED that Defendants' Unopposed Motion to Amend the Second Amended Final Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60 to Exclude Interest on Punitive Damages 913 is GRANTED. ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Amend Second Amended Final Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60 912 is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall amend the Second Amended Final Judgment by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 12/23/13.(jjhsl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: 08-cv-00091-WYD-CBS
WAYNE WATSON and
MARY WATSON
Plaintiffs,
v.
DILLON COMPANIES, INC., d/b/a KING SOOPERS, also d/b/a INTER-AMERICAN
PRODUCTS, INC., et al.
Defendants.
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on both Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to
Amend the Second Amended Final Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60 to
Exclude Interest on Punitive Damages (ECF No. 913) and Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion
to Amend Second Amended Final Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60
(ECF No. 912). After a careful review of the relevant record and controlling law, I grant
the motions. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Amend the Second Amended
Final Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60 to Exclude Interest on Punitive
Damages (ECF No. 913) is GRANTED. In accordance therewith, first, the Second
Amended Final Judgment is amended to exclude pre-judgment interest on the corrected
punitive damage award, and award pre-judgment interest only on the compensatory
portion of the award. Second, the stay of execution on the judgment is extended until
14 days after the Court enters an amended final judgment on which no post-judgment
motions remain. Finally, the commencement of the time for posting the supersedeas
bond and filing a notice of appeal is delayed until after the Court disposes of the
pending motions. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion to Amend Second
Amended Final Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60 (ECF No. 912) is
GRANTED. In accordance therewith, the Clerk of the Court shall amend the Second
Amended Final Judgment to reflect the following damage calculation:
Gilster-Mary Lee
Economic
Non Economic
Physical Impairment
Wayne Watson Total Actual Damages
Pre-judgment Interest of 9% compounded
from the filing date of 1/15/08 to the judgment
date of 9/26/12
Wayne Watson Actual Damages +
Interest
Punitive Damages
Wayne Watson Damages against Gilster-Mary Lee
$ 534,368.80
$ 366,250.00
$ 360,000.00
$ 1,260,618.80
$ 630,166.11
$ 1,890,784.91
$ 3,781,569.82
Mary Watson Consortium
Pre-Judgment Interest at 9%
Mary Watson Damages against Gilster-Mary Lee
Total Damages Against Gilster-Mary Lee
$
80,000.00
$
39,990.91
$ 119,990.91
$ 3,901,560.73
$ 1,890,784.91
Kroger
Economic
Non Economic
Physical Impairment
Wayne Watson Total Actual Damages
Pre-judgment Interest of 9% compounded
from the filing date of 1/15/08 to the judgment
date of 9/26/12
Wayne Watson Damages against Kroger
-2-
$ 100,194.15
$ 50,000.00
$ 67,500.00
$ 317,694.15
$ 158,810.96
$ 476,505.11
Mary Watson Consortium
Pre-judgment Interest at 9%
Mary Watson Damages against Kroger
Total Damages Against Kroger
$ 15,000.00
$ 7,498.29
$ 22,498.29
$ 499,003.41
Dillon
Economic
Non Economic
Physical Impairment
Wayne Watson Total Actual Damages
Pre-judgment Interest of 9% compounded
from the filing date of 1/15/08 to the judgment
date of 9/26/12
Wayne Watson Damages against Dillon
$ 33,398.05
$ 50,000.00
$ 22,500.00
$ 105,898.05
$ 52,936.99
Mary Watson Consortium
Pre-judgment Interest at 9%
Mary Watson Damages against Dillon
Total Damages Against Dillon
$ 5,000.00
$ 2,499.43
$ 7,499.43
$ 166,334.47
Subtotal
Attorney Fees
Costs
$ 4,566,898.60
$ 826,500.00
$ 387,189.33
Total
$ 5,780,587.93
$ 158,835.04
Dated: December 23, 2013
BY THE COURT:
s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
Wiley Y. Daniel
Senior United States District Judge
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?