Glacier Construction Company v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America

Filing 88

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Post Judgment Motions re 60 and 61 : The plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment 60 is denied because the defendant's response demonstrates there was no wrongful withholding. The plaintiff's motion for costs 61 , filed December 13, 2012, is denied as moot because costs were taxed by the Clerk on January 8, 2013, in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d), and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 1/24/2013.(rpmcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch
Civil Action No. 10-cv-01911-RPM
GLACIER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a Colorado corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA,
a Connecticut corporation,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S POST JUDGMENT MOTIONS

On November 29, 2012, judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of
$9,142.25, plus post judgment interest at the legal rate and costs upon the filing of a bill of costs
within fourteen days of the entry of judgment [#59].
On December 13, 2012, the plaintiff moved to alter or amend the judgment to include
prejudgment interest pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 5-12-102(1)(b), which provides for interest
“at the rate of eight percent per annum compounded annually for all moneys or the value of all
property after they are wrongfully withheld or after they become due to the date of payment or to
the date judgment is entered, whichever first occurs.” Although the plaintiff’s motion does not
cite any federal rule of civil procedure, it is construed as a motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
59(e). See, e.g., Capstick v. Allstate Ins. Co., 998 F.2d 810, 812-13 (10th Cir.1993) (plaintiff’s
post-judgment motion for prejudgment interest correctly construed as a Rule 59(e) motion).

-1-

The plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend the judgment [#60] is denied because the
defendant’s response demonstrates there was no wrongful withholding.
The plaintiff’s motion for costs [#61], filed December 13, 2012, is denied as moot
because costs were taxed by the Clerk on January 8, 2013, in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P.
54(d), and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.
Date: January 24, 2013
BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch
Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

-2-