Dual-Temp of Illinois, Inc. v. Hench Control Corporation et al

Filing 303

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman on 11/17/2014:Mailed notice(rth, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
DUAL-TEMP OF ILLINOIS, INC., an Illinois
Corporation
Plaintiff,
v.
HENCH CONTROL CORPORATION, a
California corporation, HENCH
CONTROL, INC., a California corporation,
and CAESAR-VERONA, INC., a Washington
corporation,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 09 cv 00595
Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Dual-Temp of Illinois, Inc. (“Dual-Temp”) brings the instant motion to quantify
interest based on the Court’s order and judgment in its favor following a bench trial on DualTemp’s breach of contract claim. Defendants Hench Control Corporation, Hench Control, Inc.,
and Caesar-Verona, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) oppose Dual-Temp’s motion. For the
reasons that follow, the Court stays its ruling on the instant motion and instructs Dual-Temp to
comply with Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by seeking leave from the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals for the Court to correct its Judgment of September 30, 2014 (Docket
#279) which indicates that the judgment in Dual-Temp’s favor does not include pre-judgment
interest.
BACKGROUND
Following a bench trial, the Court entered a signed memorandum opinion and order
finding Defendants jointly and severally liable for breach of contract in the amount of $113,500
“plus interest accruing” and attorney’s fees. However, the accompanying judgment form filed by
the court staff shows that the box providing that the award “does not include pre-judgment
interest” was checked, contradicting the court’s ruling. On October 28, 2014, Dual-Temp filed
its motion to quantify interest, asking the Court to quantify interest from January 6, 2009, the
date it demanded payment from Defendants in anticipation of litigation, rather than from the date
it filed suit, January 30, 2009. Defendants respond that Dual-Temp should not receive prejudgment interest because the Court’s already considered this and ruled that Dual-Temp is
denied pre-judgment interest, and that Dual-Temp’s motion fails as a motion for reconsideration
because it failed to identify the statute or rule under which Dual-Temp seeks relief. On October
29, 2014, before opposing Dual-Temp’s motion, Defendants filed their notice of appeal from the
court’s orders, including the minute entry (Docket #277), the memorandum opinion and order
(Docket #278), and the judgment in a civil case (Docket #279).

LEGAL STANDARD AND ANALYSIS
Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and the Court’s memorandum opinion and order
and judgment in a civil case, the court sua sponte will treat Dual-Temp’s instant filing as a
Motion to Correct the Court’s September 30, 2014 Judgment in a Civil Case pursuant to Rule
60(a), which provides:
The court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or
omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The
court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice. But after an appeal has
been docketed in the appellate court and while it is pending, such a mistake may be
corrected only with the appellate court’s leave.
The court finds that a discrepancy exists between the court’s memorandum opinion and order
and the judgment form, where the opinion and order awards “interest accruing,” but the
judgment form denies pre-judgment interest. The Court further finds that this discrepancy was
merely clerical error. In light of the Seventh Circuit’s presumption towards awarding prejudgment interest and based on the Court’s review of the record, the Court intended to award
pre-judgment interest to Dual-Temp, because an award does not adequately compensate DualTemp for the years of litigation resulting from its breach of contract claim against Defendants
without such an award. See Kansas v. Colorado, 533 U.S. 1, 10-11 (2001). However, because
Defendants’ have appealed this court’s ruling, the court cannot now sua sponte correct its
clerical mistake. Rather, per Rule 60(a) Dual-Temp must first seek leave from the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals for this court to correct its mistake.
CONCLUSION
The Court finds that Dual-Temp must seek leave from the Seventh Circuit for this court to
correct its judgment of September 30, 2014. Dual-Temp’s motion to quantify interest is therefore
stayed until the Seventh Circuit grants this court leave to correct the clerical mistake in the
court’s judgment regarding the award of pre-judgment interest, at which time the Court will also
decide the issue of the date from which pre-judgment interest will accrue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________
Date: November 17, 2014
____________________________
Sharon Johnson Coleman
United States District Judge