SETO et al v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY
Filing
76
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 72 Defendant's Motion to Mark Judgment Satisfied and granting in part and denying in part 74 Plaintiff's Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule of CIvil Procedure 60(b) for Relief from a Judgment or Order. See Memorandum Opinion for details. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 10/16/2012. (bsc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HAROLD G. SETO and
ROSEMARY SETO,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
2:10-cv-00505
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
Presently before the Court for disposition are the following Motions:
(i) STATE FARM’S MOTION TO MARK THE JUDGMENT SATISFIED (Document
No. 72) and RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO MARK
JUDGMENT SATISFIED (Document No. 73); and
(ii) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 60(b) FOR RELIEF FROM A JUDGMENT OR ORDER (Document No. 74) and
STATE FARM’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60(b) FOR RELIEF FROM A
JUDGMENT OR ORDER (Document No. 75).
The parties have fully stated their respective positions and the motions are ripe for
disposition.
Background
On August 29, 2012, after a trial a jury returned a Verdict for Plaintiffs in this matter in
the amount of $22,937.46. Plaintiffs did not make any request for pre-judgment interest on the
verdict award.
1
On August 29, 2012, the Court entered Judgment on the Verdict Slip, in favor of
Plaintiffs and against Defendant in the amount of $22,937.46. The Judgment did not include an
award of, or make reference to, pre-judgment interest.
On September 7, 2012, counsel for Plaintiffs informed counsel for Defendant that
Plaintiffs would not file an appeal and requested a check in the amount of $26,126.02,1 which
represented the amount of the verdict plus interest at 6% per annum plus $92.0 0 for court costs.
On or about September 13, 2012, Defendant issued payment in the amount of the
judgment ($22,937.46), and informed counsel for Plaintiffs that it would not pay interest or court
costs. To date, the check has not been accepted / cashed by Plaintiffs as they contend that they
are entitled to pre-judgment interest as well as recoupment of court costs.
Motion to Mark Judgment Satisfied
Defendant requests that the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5),
mark the Judgment satisfied. That rule states:
(b) [T]he court may relieve a party or its legal representatives from a final
judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, it is based on an
earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is
no longer equitable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5). On its face, Rule 60(b)(5) does not apply to Defendant’s motion. Rule
60(b)(5) provides a court with the discretion to declare a judgment satisfied “when damages are
paid before trial or a tortfeasor or obligor has paid the judgment debt.” AIG Sterling Heights,
Upon independent review, the Court has determined that the amount requested for prejudgment interest by Plaintiffs is not correct and, therefore, has recalculated the amount of prejudgment interest to which Plaintiffs are entitled. Based on the Complaint being filed on March
24, 2010, Plaintiffs are entitled to pre-judgment interest in the amount of $3,325.94.
2
1
LLC v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc., 579 F.3d 1268, 1272 (11th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, -- U.S.
---, 130 S.Ct. 3287 (2010) (emphasis added).
Here, although Defendant has issued payment in the amount of the judgment, Plaintiffs
have continually rejected that payment. Accordingly, payment of the Judgment remains
outstanding and Judgment is not satisfied as Defendant remains in sole possession of the funds.
For this reason, the Motion to Mark the Judgment Satisfied will be DENIED.
Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)
For Relief From a Judgment or Order
As stated supra, the Court entered Judgment against the Defendant on August 29, 2012 in
the amount of $22, 937.46 upon a jury verdict for Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs did not request, nor did
the Court include sua sponte, pre-judgment interest in the judgment. However, it is black letter
law that “pre-judgment interest in Pennsylvania contract cases is a matter or right.” Am. Enka
Co. v. Wicaco Mach., Corp., 686 F.2d 1050, 1056 (3d Cir. 1982). See also 41 Pa. Cons. Stat.
Ann. § 202 (setting legal rate of interest at six percent (6%) per annum).
Plaintiff seeks interest on the $22,937.46 judgment, accruing from March 24, 2010, the
date of filing of the Complaint, to August 29, 2012, the date judgment was entered. As the
prevailing party, under Pennsylvania law, Plaintiffs are entitled to this amount. However, the
instant disputes arises because Plaintiffs did not request the Court to amend the judgment until
October 11, 2012.
Defendant argues that any motion by Plaintiffs to amend the judgment to allow for the
interest must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which provides, “[a] motion to
alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.”
3
Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Under the application of Rule 59(e), because the Court entered Judgment on
August 29, 2012, Plaintiffs would have had to file their Rule 59(e) motion on or before
September 26, 2012, in order to comply with the 28-day time limit mandated by Rule 59(e).
Plaintiffs filed no such motion by September 26, 2012, and any effort to do so at this juncture
would be untimely.2 Thus, if the Court applied Rule 59(e), Plaintiffs would be unable to secure
the pre-judgment interest to which they are entitled.
In contrast, Plaintiffs argue that Rule 60(b) provides ground for relief from a judgment
due to a mistake, being that counsel for Plaintiffs failed to seek to amend the Judgment within
the time frame mandated by Rule 59(e).
Although Plaintiffs seek relief under Rule 60(b), the Court finds that the more suitable
avenue for relief would be under Rule 60(a), as an amendment to add interest which is more
appropriately described as a ministerial correction of an omission. Rule 60(a) provides, “the
court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever
one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record.” Thus, under the application of
Rule 60(a), because the Court may correct an omission “whenever one is found,” the Court could
amend the Judgment at this time to add the omitted interest to the Judgment.
The Court notes that on similar facts the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit amended a judgment under Rule 60(a) to add interest entitled to the prevailing party by
statute. Pfizer Inc. v. Uprichard, 422 F.3d 124 (3d Cir. 2005). In Pfizer, pursuant to
Pennsylvania statute, the prevailing party in an arbitration was entitled to the interest on an
arbitration award which accrued between the time that the arbitrator issued the award and the
court’s confirmation of the award. Id. Upon confirmation of the award, the court failed to
Moreover, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(2) specifically provides that “[a] court must
not extend the time to act under Rule[] . . . 59(e) . . . .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(2).
4
2
reduce to judgment the amount of interest entitled to the prevailing party. Id. The court applied
Rule 60(a) to amend the judgment to add this interest. Id.
Further, in Glick v. White Motor Co., 458 F.2d 1287, 1294 (3d Cir. 1972), a case relied
upon by the Pfizer court, our appellate court observed:
The [district] court held that since the Michigan pre-judgment interest statute
requires the allowance of interest from the date of filing suit as a matter of right,
the omission of pre-judgment interest was a “critical mistake” which could be
corrected by motion under Rule 60(a). We agree.
Glick involved the same facts as Pfizer, except the Court’s judgment in Glick, like the
Judgment here, failed to include both the prevailing party’s entitlement to interest and the
calculated interest amount. 458 F.2d at 1289. Notwithstanding this distinction, the Glick court
applied Rule 60(a) to amend the judgment to add both entitlement to the interest and the
calculated amount of interest. Id. at 1294. Our appellate court held that where all that is left is
the addition of interest, entitled by operation of state law, “the addition . . . is merely a
ministerial act which cannot be denied through mere inadvertence, regardless of whether the
error goes undiscovered for a period exceeding ten days.” Id.3
Pfizer and Glick are controlling in this case. Here, like the prevailing parties in Pfizer
and Glick, Plaintiffs are entitled to pre-judgment interest as a matter of right. As in Pfizer and
Glick, the Court entered judgment, but failed to reduce to judgment the amount of interest to
Similarly, in Hayden v. Scott Aviation, Inc., 684 F.2d 270, 272 (3d Cir. 1982), the Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, citing Glick, applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), rather
than Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), to amend the district court’s judgment to include
prejudgment delay damages which were mandatory pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil
Procedure 238.
3
5
which Plaintiffs were entitled. Accordingly, as did both the Pfizer and Glick courts, the Court
will amend the judgment under Rule 60(a) to add this interest.4
Plaintiffs also seek to amend the Judgment to add $92.00 “for the court cost to file the
Complaint.” However, pursuant to Local Rule 54(B), a Bill of Costs must be filed and the Clerk
of Court will tax costs for a prevailing party. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request to amend the
judgment to include $92.00 as costs will be DENIED. Plaintiffs shall file a Bill of Costs
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54 and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 54.
Conclusion
For the hereinabove reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to interest from
March 24, 2010, the date the Complaint was filed, through August 29, 2012, the date Judgment
The Court is aware of the decision of United States Supreme Court in Osterneck v. Ernst &
Whinney, 489 U.S. 169 (1989), a case decided seventeen (17) years before Pfizer. In Osterneck,
the Supreme Court held that if an interest provision is not included in the judgment, a motion to
amend the judgment to add prejudgment interest must comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). 489 U.S.
at 176. Significantly, the Supreme Court noted that an examination of the applicability of
prejudgment interest would require the district court to “reexamine matters encompassed within
the merits of the underlying action.” Id. Accordingly, the Court held that the interests of
avoiding piecemeal appellate review of judgments and promoting the finality of judgments were
best served by applying the time constraints of Rule 59(e) to post-judgment motions for
prejudgment interest. Id. at 177.
4
In Osterneck, the issue arose in the context of the prevailing party seeking prejudgment
interest on compensatory damages awarded in the underlying judgment on the merits. This is
prejudgment interest in the classic sense because it refers to interest which was earned before a
determination of the merits, i.e., entry of judgment and requires a reexamination of events prior
to the entry of judgment. Id. In contrast, here, Plaintiffs seek interest which accrued after the
merits based determination, i.e., the jury’s Verdict, and which does not require a reexamination
of events prior to the entry of judgment.
Because of this distinction, the Osterneck Court’s concern for finality of judgments and
avoidance of piecemeal review, which necessitated the use of Rule 59(e), is not implicated here.
Thus, the Court finds that Osterneck is not inconsistent with Pfizer.
6
was entered, in the amount of $3,325.94. Pursuant to Rule 60(a), the Court will amend the
judgment entered on August 29, 2012 to add this amount.
An appropriate Order follows and an Amended Judgment shall be entered.
McVerry, J.
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HAROLD G. SETO and
ROSEMARY SETO,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
2:10-cv-00505
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 16th day of October, 2012, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s
Motion to Mark the Judgment Satisfied is DENIED and Plaintiffs’ Motion For Relief From a
Judgment or Order is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as follows:
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend the judgment to include pre-judgment
interest is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Judgment entered by the Court on August 29,
2012, (Document No. 71) is AMENDED by adding the following sentence:
Additionally, Defendant, State Farm Insurance Company shall pay Plaintiffs,
Harold G. Seto and Rosemary Seto, pre-judgment interest at the rate of 6% per
annum, in the amount of $3,325.94, for a total of $26,263.40.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend the judgment to include
court costs is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Terrence F. McVerry
United States District Court Judge
8
cc:
Charles C. Gentile, Esquire
Gentile Law Offices
Email: charles.c.gentile@gmail.com
Noah Geary, Esquire
Email: noahgeary@ngearylawoffices.net
Daniel L. Rivetti, Esquire
Robb Leonard Mulvihill LLP
Email: drivetti@rlmlawfirm.com
9
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?