Alessi Equipment, Inc. v. American Piledriving Equipment, Inc.

Filing 179

ORDER: The Court is in receipt of the parties' submissions regarding prejudgment interest and Defendant American Piledriving Equipment, Inc.'s ("APE") intention to move for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Proc edure ("Rule") 59(a). (Docket Nos. 176; 177). If the parties cannot agree on the appropriate triggering date for prejudgment interest, Plaintiff Alessi Equipment, Inc. ("Alessi") must move pursuant to Rule 59(e) to amend the ju dgment to add prejudgment interest starting from Alessi's preferred triggering date. See generally Foresco Co. v. Oh, 337 F. Supp. 3d 304, 306 (S.D.N.Y. 2018); see also Stanford Square, L.L.C. v. Nomura Asset Cap. Corp., 232 F. Supp. 2d 289, 291 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). If APE moves for a new trial, the Court will address that request along with Alessi's motion. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy on 6/23/2022) (vfr)

Case 7:18-cv-03976-JCM Document 179 Filed 06/23/22 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------X
ALESSI EQUIPMENT, INC.,
Plaintiff,
-againstAMERICAN PILEDRIVING EQUIPMENT,
INC.,
Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------------X
AMERICAN PILEDRIVING EQUIPMENT, INC.,

ORDER
18 Civ. 3976 (JCM)

Counterclaim-Plaintiff,
-againstALESSI EQUIPMENT, INC.,
Counterclaim-Defendant.
--------------------------------------------------------------X
The Court is in receipt of the parties’ submissions regarding prejudgment interest and
Defendant American Piledriving Equipment, Inc.’s (“APE”) intention to move for a new trial
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 59(a). (Docket Nos. 176; 177). If the
parties cannot agree on the appropriate triggering date for prejudgment interest, Plaintiff Alessi
Equipment, Inc. (“Alessi”) must move pursuant to Rule 59(e) to amend the judgment to add
prejudgment interest starting from Alessi’s preferred triggering date. See generally Foresco Co.
v. Oh, 337 F. Supp. 3d 304, 306 (S.D.N.Y. 2018); see also Stanford Square, L.L.C. v. Nomura
Asset Cap. Corp., 232 F. Supp. 2d 289, 291 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). If APE moves for a new trial, the
Court will address that request along with Alessi’s motion.

Case 7:18-cv-03976-JCM Document 179 Filed 06/23/22 Page 2 of 2

Dated:

June 23, 2022
White Plains, New York
SO ORDERED:
_______________________________
JUDITH C. McCARTHY
United States Magistrate Judge

-2-