ExxonMobil Oil Corporation v. TIG Insurance Company

Filing 80

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 79 Report and Recommendations. The Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error. The Court finds none and agrees with the R&R that judgment was "ascertained in a meaningful way and supported by the evidence" on May 26, 2020, when Judge Ramos confirmed the arbitral award and entered judgment for ExxonMobil. Andrulonis v. United States, 26 F.3d 1224, 1233 (2d Cir. 1994) (quoting Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno , 494 U.S. 827, 836 (1990)); see also NML Cap. v. Republic of Argentina, 435 F. App'x 41, 43 (2d Cir. 2011) ("In general, pre-judgment interest ceases to accrue, and post-judgment interest begins to accrue, as of the date that judgment fi rst 'is ascertained in a meaningful way and supported by the evidence.'" (quoting Adrian v. Town of Yorktown, 620 F.3d 104, 107 (2d Cir. 2010))). That judgment has never been disturbed by this Court, nor was it set aside after a se parate review on appeal. The Court finds ExxonMobil's suggestion that this Court should be guided by Ninth Circuit authority-rather than "certain decisions in the Second Circuit"-unpersuasive. See ExxonMobil Letter 3. Moreover, con trary to ExxonMobil's argument, the Second Circuit has expressly rejected the consideration of equities in determining what date "trigger[s] the running of interest." See, e.g., Andrulonis, 26 F.3d at 1233. The Court therefore adopts the R&R in its entirety as the opinion of the Court. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil on 11/17/2022) (tg) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

Case 1:16-cv-09527-MKV-SN Document 80 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:
DATE FILED: 11/17/2022

EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION
Petitioner,
-againstTIG INSURANCE COMPANY,

1:16-cv-09527-MKV
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

Respondent.
MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, United States District Judge:
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals remanded this case for the sole purpose of calculating
“the interest accrued [post-Award] through the date of judgment.” ExxonMobil Oil Corp. v. TIG
Ins. Co., 44 F.4th 163, 180 (2d Cir. 2022). On August 15, 2022, the Court ordered the parties to
submit a proposed amended judgment according with this directive. Order [ECF No. 70]. The
parties were unable to agree on a proposed judgment, however, because they dispute the date that
“judgment” was meaningfully ascertained—determining when prejudgment interest stops
accruing and post-judgment interest begins. See Consent Letter Motion [ECF No. 73]; TIG Letter
[ECF No. 75]; ExxonMobil Letter [ECF No. 76]. On September 21, 2022, the Court referred this
dispute to Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn. See Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge [ECF
No. 78].
Magistrate Judge Netburn issued a thorough and carefully reasoned Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) on November 2, 2022, recommending that this Court calculate postAward prejudgment interest from August 17, 2019 until May 26, 2020, for a total prejudgment
interest award of $1,744,519.50. R&R 1 [ECF No. 79]. The parties had fourteen days to file
objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); R&R 6. None were filed. When
there are no objections, the Court reviews an R & R for clear error. See, e.g., Andrews v. LeClaire,

Case 1:16-cv-09527-MKV-SN Document 80 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 2

709 F. Supp. 2d 269, 271 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); Batson v. RIM San Antonio Acquisition, LLC, No. 15CV-07576 (ALC), 2022 WL 767071, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2022); Harrell v. Chappius, No.
17CIV758LAPSN, 2020 WL 10226736, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2020).
The Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error. The Court finds none and agrees with the
R&R that judgment was “ascertained in a meaningful way and supported by the evidence” on May
26, 2020, when Judge Ramos confirmed the arbitral award and entered judgment for ExxonMobil.
Andrulonis v. United States, 26 F.3d 1224, 1233 (2d Cir. 1994) (quoting Kaiser Aluminum &
Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827, 836 (1990)); see also NML Cap. v. Republic of Argentina,
435 F. App’x 41, 43 (2d Cir. 2011) (“In general, pre-judgment interest ceases to accrue, and postjudgment interest begins to accrue, as of the date that judgment first ‘is ascertained in a meaningful
way and supported by the evidence.’” (quoting Adrian v. Town of Yorktown, 620 F.3d 104, 107
(2d Cir. 2010))). That judgment has never been disturbed by this Court, nor was it set aside after
a separate review on appeal.
The Court finds ExxonMobil’s suggestion that this Court should be guided by Ninth Circuit
authority—rather than “certain decisions in the Second Circuit”—unpersuasive. See ExxonMobil
Letter 3. Moreover, contrary to ExxonMobil’s argument, the Second Circuit has expressly rejected
the consideration of equities in determining what date “trigger[s] the running of interest.” See,
e.g., Andrulonis, 26 F.3d at 1233.
The Court therefore adopts the R&R in its entirety as the opinion of the Court.
SO ORDERED.

_________________________________
MARY KAY VYSKOCIL
United States District Judge

Date: November 17, 2022
New York, NY

2