Haskett v. Flanders et al

Filing 162

ORDER on 153 Motion for Relief From Judgment Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) to Deposit Funds With the Court. The Court grants Mr. Flanders' motion in part as indicated in the attached Order. By Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 12/09/2015. (athom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge R. Brooke Jackson
Civil Action No 13-cv-03392-RBJ-KLM
PHILLIP DAVID HASKETT,
Plaintiff,
v.
GARY WOODROW FLANDERS,
Defendant.

ORDER

On August 17 and 18, 2015 this Court, without a jury, tried the remaining claims in this
case. On September 10, 2015 the Court entered written findings, conclusions and an order of
judgment. The Court directed that judgment enter in favor of the plaintiff, Mr. Haskett, and
against the defendant, Mr. Flanders and awarded damages to Mr. Haskett in the amount of
$1,500.00 on his First Claim for Relief. His Second and Third Claims were dismissed. The
Court also awarded Mr. Haskett, as the prevailing party, costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(d)(1), to be taxed by the Clerk of Court pursuant to Local Rule 54.1. ECF No. 136. A Final
Judgment consistent with that direction was entered on the same day. ECF No. 137. The Clerk
subsequently taxed costs in the amount of $2,241.10. ECF No. 145.
On November 6, 2015 Mr. Flanders filed what he called a motion for relief from
judgment under Rule 60(b)(6). ECF No. 153. The substance of the motion was his claim that he
wanted to pay the full amount of the judgment ($3,741.10), plus any applicable interest, in
exchange for a satisfaction of judgment, but that Mr. Haskett would not take his calls and was

1

accusing him of harassment. Therefore, he requested the Court’s permission to tender the
$3,741.10 (plus interest) to the registry of the Court; then to have the Court direct the Clerk to
“mark the $3,741.10 judgement against Flanders “SATISFIED;” and finally to hold the funds
until Mr. Haskett claimed them. He also suggested that the Clerk might wish to deduct
$1,547.65 from the amount before remitting any funds to Mr. Haskett in order to cover the jury
costs imposed by the Court against Mr. Haskett but which remains unpaid.
Mr. Haskett opposes the motion. ECF No. 159. First, he claims that Mr. Flanders failed
to comply with Local Rule 7.1A, requiring parties to confer before filing non-dispositive
motions. However, since Mr. Flanders did attempt to confer (meaning to talk, not to exchange
unpleasant emails), but Mr. Haskett would not talk to him, it is Mr. Haskett, not Mr. Flanders,
who has failed to comply with the rule. Second, Mr. Haskett opposes the motion, because he
fears that accepting the benefits of the judgment might cut off his right to appeal from the
judgment. He states that he would accept the money in order to terminate the accrual of interest
on condition that it not be construed as a satisfaction of judgment, or alternatively, that he could
use the funds to purchase transcripts of a pretrial hearing and the trial for his use on appeal. 1
The Court grants Mr. Flanders’ motion in part. He may pay the $3,741.10 plus interest
into the court registry. The interest is negligible. The Court did not award pre-judgment interest.
See, e.g., Morrison Knudson Corp. v. Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc., 532 F.3d 1062,
1073 (10th Cir. 2008) (“An award of prejudgment interest is within the district court’s
discretion.”) (quoting Resolution Trust Corp. v. Federal Savings and Loan Ins. Corp., 25 F.3d
1493, 1505 (10th Cir. 1994)). However, Mr. Haskett is entitled to post-judgment interest. 28

1

Mr. Haskett filed a notice of appeal on the same day as the Flanders motion, and apparently asked the
Tenth Circuit to rule on Mr. Flanders’ Rule 60(b) motion, but the Circuit declined to do so. ECF No. 161.

2

U.S.C. § 1961(a)(“Interest shall be allowed on any money judgment in a civil case recovered in a
district court.”).
Post-judgment interest is computed daily to the date of payment. The current daily rate is
$0.04 per day. Mr. Flanders apparently attempted to pay the judgment sometime before
November 2, 2015, as even Mr. Haskett seems to admit. See ECF No. 159 at 6. In any event, it
is clear that he was prepared to pay the amount of the judgment plus interest into the Court’s
registry as of November 6, 2015 when he filed the pending motion requesting leave to do so.
The Court deems November 6, 2015 to be the date of payment for this purpose. Therefore,
assuming that Mr. Flanders does now deposit the amount of the judgment with the court, as he
has indicated he wished to do, the amount of post-judgment interest owed by Mr. Flanders is
$2.28 ($0.04 per day from September 11, 2015 through November 6, 2015).
If Mr. Flanders deposits $3,743.38 (the judgment amount including costs and interest)
with the court, the court will hold the funds consistent with the requirements of Rule 67 of the
Federal Rules. Per Local Rule 67.2(a), on depositing the funds, he should reference in writing
the docket entry in the court’s Electronic Case Filing system assigned to this order authorizing
the deposit. If Mr. Haskett decides to terminate the litigation, the Court will disburse the funds
to him and order that the judgment has been satisfied. If not, the Court will hold the funds and
await further directions, if any, from the court of appeals.
The Court will not, absent Mr. Haskett’s permission, deduct the jury costs assessed
against him from the funds deposited by Mr. Flanders. However, the Court expects Mr. Haskett
to comply with the order to pay the amount assessed. If he does not comply with that court
order, the Court will pursue an appropriate remedy.
DATED this 9th day of December, 2015.

3

BY THE COURT:

___________________________________
R. Brooke Jackson
United States District Judge

4