Chen et al v. U.S. Bank National Association et al
Filing
297
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 285 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as premature. Plaintiff may renew the Motion at a later dateif appropriate. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (TH)
Case 2:16-cv-01109-RSM Document 297 Filed 05/15/20 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
6
7
8
9
Case No. 16-1109RSM
CHI CHEN, et al.,
10
Plaintiffs,
11
v.
12
13
14
15
16
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
PRELIMINARY INTEREST
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et
al.,
Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Song, Tengyao’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment. Dkt. #270. Plaintiff Song moves the Court to rule now, prior to trial and
17
18
as a matter of law, that he is entitled to prejudgment interest running from the date U.S. Bank
19
disbursed his funds out of escrow, September 10, 2012. Id. He argues that, if he prevails, this
20
amount will be $453,534.24 on top of his underlying claim of $500,000. Id. at 2 n.1.
21
22
23
24
Summary judgment is appropriate where “the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). Prejudgment
25
interest is based on the principle of “preventing the unjust enrichment of the defendant who has
26
wrongfully delayed payment.” Polygon Nw. Co. v. Am. Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 143 Wn. App. 753,
27
189 P.3d 777, 794 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). This is available when an amount claimed is
28
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PRELIMINARY
INTEREST - 1
Case 2:16-cv-01109-RSM Document 297 Filed 05/15/20 Page 2 of 3
1
“liquidated,” which occurs where “the evidence furnishes data which, if believed, make it
2
possible to compute the amount with exactness, without reliance on opinion or discretion.”
3
Hansen v. Rothaus, 107 Wn.2d 468, 730 P.2d 662, 664 (1986). The fact that a claim is
4
disputed does not make it “unliquidated” so long as it may be determined by reference to an
5
6
7
objective source. Egerer v. CSR W., LLC, 116 Wn. App. 645, 67 P.3d 1128, 1133 (Wash. Ct.
App. 2003).
8
Plaintiff Song argues that “[n]o matter how many liability, causation, equitable or other
9
defenses U.S. Bank may continue to conjure up, the amount at issue is sufficiently fixed to
10
11
12
authorize prejudgment interest,” and that “[a] clearer case is hard to imagine.” Dkt. #270 at 5.
Defendant U.S. Bank argues that this motion is premature and that there is a genuine
13
dispute as to the amount of the alleged loss, precluding summary judgment. Dkt. #275 at 3.
14
The Court agrees on both points. Although U.S. Bank’s dispute of liability may be irrelevant to
15
this Motion, U.S. Bank also presents sufficient evidence and argument to create a genuine
16
dispute as to the amount of the alleged loss and the amount of time that prejudgment interest
17
18
should accrue. See Dkt. #275 at 17. The Court finds it cannot compute the amount of
19
prejudgment interest with exactness based on this record. Even if it could be computed after an
20
evidentiary hearing or supplemental briefing, the Court would exercise its discretion to defer
21
this issue to after the first bellwether trial.
22
23
24
Having considered the applicable briefing submitted by the parties and the entire record,
the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff Song’s Motion for Partial Summary
25
Judgment, Dkt. #270 is DENIED as premature. Plaintiff may renew the Motion at a later date
26
if appropriate.
27
28
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PRELIMINARY
INTEREST - 2
Case 2:16-cv-01109-RSM Document 297 Filed 05/15/20 Page 3 of 3
1
2
DATED this 15th day of May, 2020.
3
4
5
6
7
A
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PRELIMINARY
INTEREST - 3
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?