Bader Farms, Inc. et al v. Monsanto Company

Filing 692

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to enforce judgment as to post-judgment interest [Doc. 687] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that BASF shall pay plaintiff post-judgment interest in the amount of $280,948 .14 to satisfy its share of interest owed on half of the compensatory damages and costs paid on October 31, 2022. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that BASF shall pay plaintiff interest on the shortfall of BASF's October 31, 2022, payment at the rate of $11.24/day from November 1, 2022, until it is paid in full. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 12/8/2022. (JMC)

Case: 1:16-cv-00299-SNLJ Doc. #: 692 Filed: 12/08/22 Page: 1 of 5 PageID #: 42176

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION
BADER FARMS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MONSANTO COMPANY and
BASF Corporation,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

MDL No. 1:18-md-02820-SNLJ
Indiv. Case No. 1:16-cv-00299-SNLJ

MEMORANDUM and ORDER
After a three-week trial, a jury found defendants BASF and Monsanto liable on
plaintiff’s tort claims and $15,000,000 in compensatory damages. In a separate phase, the
jury awarded $250,000,000 in punitive damages against Monsanto. Judgment on that
verdict, after some disagreements with respect to the wording, was entered by this Court
on February 28, 2020. The parties engaged in extensive post-trial motion practice. On
November 25, 2020, this Court entered an amended judgment, reducing punitive damages
to $60,000,000.
After an appeal to the Eighth Circuit, and remand to this Court, a dispute has arisen
between plaintiff and defendant BASF regarding post-judgment interest as applied to
BASF’s portion of the $15,000,000 compensatory damages award. Under 28 U.S.C. §
1961, a party that obtains a money judgment may recover post-judgment interest from the
opposing party. Finan v. Good Earth Tools, Inc., 2011 WL 147738, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Jan.
18, 2011) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a) (“Interest shall be allowed on any money judgment

1

Case: 1:16-cv-00299-SNLJ Doc. #: 692 Filed: 12/08/22 Page: 2 of 5 PageID #: 42177

in a civil case recovered in a district court.”)). Under the statute, post-judgment interest
begins to accrue on entry of the judgment, accruing at a rate equal to the weekly average
one-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 the judgment. See
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827, 835 (1990)
(“[P]ostjudgment interest properly runs from the date of the entry of judgment.”).
Plaintiff argues that post-judgment interest began to accrue after the February 28,
2020 judgment. BASF contends that post-judgment interest began to accrue after the
November 25, 2020 amended judgment because that judgment was the “final appealable
judgment.” [Doc. 689 at 4, citing U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co. v. Housing Auth. Of the City
of Poplar Bluff, 114 F.3d 693, 698 (8th Cir. 1997).] BASF calls the February judgment
the “preliminary judgment,” and BASF insists that the November judgment is the “final
appealable judgment” that triggers accrual of post-judgment interest. [Doc. 689 at 7.]
This Court disagrees. BASF’s own citations do not appear to support its position.
U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Company does state that interest accrues as of the “date of the
final judgment on damages,” 11 F.3d at 698, but in that case, the parties disagreed whether
the earlier date of the judgment on liability alone triggered accrual versus the later judgment
on damages. That is, the first judgment was not complete because it did not include any
determination of damages. No such disparity exists here. BASF also cites In re Popkin &
Stern, 287 B.R. 738, 743 (B.A.P. 8th Cir.), aff’d, 346 F.3d 804 (8th Cir. 2003), and quotes
“Because a bankruptcy court is part of the district court, the statute applies to bankruptcy
proceedings…and post-judgment interest accrues when damages are quantified in a final,
2

Case: 1:16-cv-00299-SNLJ Doc. #: 692 Filed: 12/08/22 Page: 3 of 5 PageID #: 42178

appealable judgment.” But there, the question was whether a 1994 judgment that stated its
award could later be reduced triggered accrual of interest; the Eighth Circuit stated “interest
began accruing on the 1994 Judgment the day it was entered. This fact is not altered by
the possibility that the 1994 Judgment may ultimately be reduced if the actual
deficiency…is found to be less than the judgment.” Id. These facts do not support BASF’s
position.
The Finan case, upon which BASF chiefly relies, does not even support BASF. The
case involves two judgments, a November 2007 judgment and an amended judgment
entered in April 2008. The court held that post-interest judgment began accruing at the
later, April 2008 judgment—but that was because the April 2008 judgment included
prejudgment interest through the date of the April 2008 judgment. 2011 WL 147738, at
*5. Applying interest after the November 2007 judgment would have allowed for a doublerecovery.
BASF also cites Allstate Vehicle & Prop. Ins. Co. v. Adams, 2019 WL 13172371,
at *2 (W.D. Mo. Jan. 10, 2019). There, the court determined whether an April 2018
judgment, or the August 2018 date the court denied post-trial motions, triggered the accrual
of post-judgment interest. The court stated that “the issue is whether the judgment against
Allstate became final on April 6 or August 10, 2018.” Id. at 1. The court held that “the
April 6, 2018 judgment is a final judgment, and the ‘starting point’ for the calculation of
postjudgment interest.” Id. at 2. Although this Court did amend the judgment after posttrial motions, that case does not demand that the amended judgment is the starting point
for post-judgment interest.
3

Case: 1:16-cv-00299-SNLJ Doc. #: 692 Filed: 12/08/22 Page: 4 of 5 PageID #: 42179

BASF’s reliance on E2Interactive, Inc. v. Blackhawk Network, Inc., 2012 WL
13000379, at *1 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 6, 2012), is also inapposite because, in that case, the
court held its earlier judgment was not “final” for purposes of accruing post-judgment
interest because it had left open the determination of pre-judgment interest. There, the only
question was the date dividing the accrual of prejudgment interest and post-judgment
interest—which was significant because there the prejudgment interest rate was 3% higher
than the post-judgment rate. The court held that its final determination of damages
including prejudgment interest constituted the final judgment to which post-judgment
interest could attach. Id. Again, circumstances here are quite different.
The February 2020 judgment was a final judgment on the merits. It was appealable.
The parties tolled the appeals period while they engaged in post-trial briefing, but there is
no reason post-judgment interest did not begin accruing at the entry of that final judgment.
The compensatory damages that were entered as part of the February judgment were
untouched by the Court’s November judgment, and, indeed, the Court of Appeals also left
the amount of compensatory damages intact. Defendant must pay post-judgment interest
beginning on the date of the February 2020 judgment.
Plaintiff’s motion will be granted.

4

Case: 1:16-cv-00299-SNLJ Doc. #: 692 Filed: 12/08/22 Page: 5 of 5 PageID #: 42180

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to enforce judgment as to postjudgment interest [Doc. 687] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that BASF shall pay plaintiff post-judgment interest
in the amount of $280,948.14 to satisfy its share of interest owed on half of the
compensatory damages and costs paid on October 31, 2022.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that BASF shall pay plaintiff interest on the shortfall
of BASF’s October 31, 2022, payment at the rate of $11.24/day from November 1, 2022,
until it is paid in full.
Dated this 8th day of December, 2022.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5