United States of America et al v. Forrest B. White, JR. Masonry, Inc. et al
Filing
77
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Colin H. Lindsay granting in part and denying in part 74 Motion to Vacate, Alter, or Amend Judgment. The Court grants the motion in part as to the applicable postjudgment interest rate, but denies the remainder of the motion to alter or vacate. The Court will enter an amended final judgment in accordance with this opinion. cc: Counsel(JAC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF
LEE BRICK PRODUCTS, INC.
Plaintiff,
v.
CASE NO. 3:13-cv-958-CHL
FORREST B. WHITE, Jr. MASONRY, INC., et al.,
Defendants,
Memorandum Opinion and Order
The Court previously granted summary judgment in favor of Lee Brick Products, Inc.
(“Lee Brick”) and entered judgment against Forrest B. White Masonry, Inc. (“White Masonry”);
ACC Construction, Company, Inc. (“ACC Construction”); and Liberty Mutual Insurance
Company (“Liberty Mutual”). (DNs 71 & 72.)
Now, ACC Construction and Liberty Mutual move to vacate that decision and to alter or
amend the Court’s entry of judgment. (DN 74.) White Masonry did not join in the motion. Lee
Brick did not respond to ACC Construction’s and Liberty Mutual’s motion to vacate. For the
reasons below, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the motion.
Legal Standard
A decision on a motion to alter or amend a judgment is within the Court’s “considerable”
discretion. Leisure Caviar, LLC v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 616 F.3d 612, 615 (6th Cir. 2010).
The Court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion for “(1) a clear error of law; (2) newly discovered
evidence; (3) an intervening change in controlling law; or (4) a need to prevent manifest
injustice.” Id.
1
Analysis
I.
ACC Construction and Liberty Mutual argue that the Court committed clear error. (DN
74-1, #636.) Specifically, ACC Construction and Liberty Mutual argue that the Court erred in
granting summary judgment to Lee Brick after finding that a genuine dispute of material fact
existed as to their statute of limitations defense. (Id.) ACC Construction and Liberty Mutual
also argue that the Court improperly weighed evidence at the summary judgment stage. (Id.)
ACC Construction and Liberty Mutual have not shown that the Court committed clear
error. ACC Construction and Liberty Mutual argued that the statute of limitations barred Lee
Brick’s claim against them. The Court denied summary judgment to them after finding that a
“genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Lee Brick supplied materials pursuant to the
original contract or for remedial purposes after October 7, 2012.” (DN 71, #625 – 26.) ACC
Construction and Liberty Mutual have not shown how that finding, which related only to their
own motion for summary judgment on Lee Brick’s claims against them, precludes entry of
summary judgment on White Masonry’s counterclaim when White Masonry did not offer any
evidence in support of its counterclaim. And, ACC Construction and Liberty Mutual have not
shown that the Court clearly erred by weighing evidence at the summary judgment stage.
In
particular, ACC Construction and Liberty Mutual have not shown how a finding of a factual
dispute relating to their statute of limitations defense, which they relied on as a defense to Lee
Brick’s claims, means that the Court clearly erred in holding that, “Celotex in particular
mandates the entry of summary judgment against White Masonry on its counterclaim because
White Masonry has the burden of proving its counterclaim at trial, and White Masonry has
offered no evidence in support of its counterclaim.” (Id., #627 – 28.)
2
II.
As an alternative argument, ACC Construction and Liberty Mutual ask the Court to
amend the post-judgment interest rate award. (DN 74-1, #638.) They argue that federal law
governs post-judgment interest, and the Court erred in awarding post-judgment interest above the
applicable statutory rate. (Id.) The Court agrees.
In Riddle, the plaintiffs appealed a district court’s award of postjudgment interest
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. Estate of Riddle v. S. Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., 421 F.3d 400,
409 (6th Cir. 2005). The plaintiffs asked the court of appeals to hold that a district court sitting
in diversity should award postjudgment interest pursuant to state law. Id. The court of appeals
rejected this argument and held that the “district court did not err in applying the federal rate of
interest.” Id. Rather, “[i]n diversity cases in this Circuit, federal law controls postjudgment
interest but state law governs awards of prejudgment interest.” Id. Accordingly, the Court erred
in awarding postjudgment interest at the state law rate.
The statute says, “Such interest shall be calculated from the date of the entry of the
judgment, at a rate equal to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as
published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar week
preceding the date of judgment.” 28 U.S.C. § 1961. The date of judgment in this matter was
May 8, 2017. The calendar week preceding the date of judgment was May 5, 2017. Thus, the
applicable postjudgment interest rate is 4%.1 The Court will amend the postjudgment interest
rate set forth in the final judgment to 4% in accordance with federal law.
1
See BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, SELECTED INTEREST RATES –
H.15 DATA DOWNLOAD PROGRAM
https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/h15_technical_qa.htm.
3
Order
The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part ACC Construction and Liberty
Mutual’s motion to vacate, alter, or amend the judgment (DN 74). The Court grants the motion
in part as to the applicable postjudgment interest rate, but denies the remainder of the motion to
alter or vacate. The Court will enter an amended final judgment in accordance with this opinion.
July 27, 2017
Colin Lindsay, MagistrateJudge
United States District Court
4
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?