Whitesell Corporation v. Whirlpool Corporation et al

Filing 765

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 746 Plaintiff's motion to amend/correct the judgment to include pre-judgment interest ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN S O U T H E R N DIVISION

W H I T E S E L L CORPORATION, P l a in tif f , C a se No. 1:05-CV-679 v. H O N . ROBERT HOLMES BELL W H I R L P O O L CORPORATION, W H IR L P O O L MEXICO S.A. de C.V., a n d JOSEPH SHARKEY, D e f e n d a n ts , and W H I R L P O O L CORPORATION, C o u n te r- P l a in tif f , v. W H I T E S E L L CORPORATION, C o u n ter -D e f e n d a n t. / M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER T h is matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's motion to amend/correct the judgment to include pre-judgment interest (Dkt. #746). Mich Comp. Laws § 600.6013(8) provides in p e rtin e n t part: [ I]n ter e st on a money judgment recovered in a civil action is c a lc u la te d at 6-month intervals from the date of filing the c o m p l a in t at a rate of interest equal to 1% plus the average in terest rate paid at auctions of 5-year United States treasury n o te s during the 6 months immediately preceding July 1 and J a n u a ry 1, as certified by the state treasurer, and compounded

a n n u a lly, according to this section. Interest under this s u b s e c tio n is calculated on the entire amount of the money ju d g m e n t, including attorney fees and other costs. Defendant's response brief requires the Court to address whether, under § 600.6013(8), a p re v a ilin g party may recover interest dating back to the filing of the complaint on damages in c u rre d after the filing of the complaint, or whether interest on damages incurred after the f ilin g of the complaint accrues from the date on which the damages are actually incurred. I n interpreting a state statute, a federal court sitting in diversity "must apply state law in a c co rd a n c e with the controlling decisions of the highest court of the state." Meridian Mut. In s . Co. v. Kellman, 197 F.3d 1178, 1181 (6th Cir. 1999) (citing Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 3 0 4 U.S. 64 (1938)). Though the Michigan Supreme Court has suggested that it favors a s tric t textual reading of the phrase "entire amount of the money judgment," 1 it has not d i r e c tly addressed the question presented here. When the state's highest court has not a d d re ss e d an issue, the federal court "must attempt to ascertain how that court would rule if it were faced with the issue." Kellman, 197 F.3d 1178. In performing this "ventriloquial f u n c tio n ," a district court is bound by the ordinary principles of stare decisis. Rutherford v. C o lu m b ia Gas, 575 F.3d 616, 619 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Wankier v. Crown Equip. Corp., 3 5 3 F.3d 862, 866 (10th Cir. 2003)). Thus, when a Sixth Circuit panel has rendered a p u b lis h e d decision anticipating how a state's highest court would address an issue, that d ec isio n is binding on this Court, "unless an intervening decision of the state's highest court h a s resolved the issue." Id. See Ayar v. Foodland Distribs., 698 N.W.2d 875 (Mich. 2005); Morales v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 672 N.W.2d 849 (Mich. 2003); Buzzita v. Larizza Indus., Inc., 641 N.W.2d 593 (Mich. 2002) (Corrigan, C.J., concurring). 2
1

In Perceptron, Inc. v. Sensor Adaptive Machines, Inc., 221 F.3d 913 (6th Cir. 2000), th e plaintiff recovered damages against the defendant for breach of a non-compete a g re e m e n t. A portion of the damages award was attributable to breaches of the non-compete a g re e m e n t that occurred prior to the filing of the complaint, and a portion of the award was a ttrib u ta b le to breaches that occurred after the filing of the complaint. The plaintiff sought p re -ju d g m e n t interest from the filing of the complaint on the entire award, but the defendant arg u e d that interest should accrue on the damages attributable to breaches of the non-compete th a t occurred after the filing of the complaint only when the breaches actually occurred. The S ix th Circuit held that "Michigan law requires that prejudgment interest be calculated in this c a s e on the entire judgment from the date the complaint was filed." Id. at 923. The court f o u n d it significant that "the breach of contract claim was alleged in the complaint and c le a rly arose before the complaint was filed," even though the defendant's "continued breach a lle g e d ly resulted in damages that did not accrue until after the complaint was filed." Id. at 9 2 4 . Similarly, in this case Plaintiff's claim for breach of the 2002 SAA was alleged in the co m p lai n t and clearly arose before the complaint was filed, even though Defendant's c o n tin u e d breach resulted in damages that did not accrue until after the complaint was filed. N o intervening decisions of the Michigan Supreme Court2 can be read to cast doubt on the b ind ing nature of this decision in the matter at hand. Defendant urges this Court to disregard

Defendant cites numerous decisions of the Michigan Court of Appeals suggesting that interest does not accrue on damages incurred after the filing of the complaint until the damages are actually incurred. However, these cases pre-date Perceptron and they are not decisions of the Michigan Supreme Court. 3

2

P e rc e p tr o n as contrary to public policy, but this Court simply does not have the authority to d o so. See Rutherford, 575 F.3d at 619. Accordingly, I T IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to amend/correct the judgment ( D k t . #746) is GRANTED. The judgment entered February 18, 2010 (Dkt. No. 743) shall b e amended to reflect prejudgment interest as calculated in accordance with Mich. Comp. L a w s § 600.6013(8) and the foregoing opinion.

Dated: April 1, 2010

/s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLMES BELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4