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, )

Download PDF
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?