Chen v. The GEO Group Inc

Filing 561

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRE-JUDGMENT AND POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST, granting 525 Motion. Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL)

Case 3:17-cv-05769-RJB Document 561 Filed 12/08/21 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
8
9

UGOCHUKWU GOODLUCK
NWAUZOR individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, and FERNANDO
AGUIRRE-URBINA, individually,

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Plaintiffs,
v.

CASE NO. C17-5769RJB
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR PRE-JUDGMENT
AND POST-JUDGMENT
INTEREST

THE GEO GROUP, INC., a Florida
corporation,
Defendant.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Pre-Judgment and
Post-Judgment Interest. Dkt. 525. The Court has considered the pleadings filed regarding the
motion, evidence heard during the trial, and the remaining record. No party has requested oral
argument pursuant to Local Rule W.D. Wash. 7(b)(4).
On October 29, 2021, the jury awarded Plaintiffs back damages under the Washington
Minimum Wage Act (“MWA”). Dkt. 519. The verdict form was a single sentence: “[w]e, the
jury, find the class Plaintiffs damages to be: $17,297,063.05.” Id. Plaintiffs now move for an
award of (1) pre-judgment interest to be added to the back wages owed, and (2) post-judgment
interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). Id. The Defendant, GEO Group, Inc. (“GEO”) does
not oppose the motion for an award of post-judgment interest. Dkt. 533. Further analysis on that

24

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRE-JUDGMENT AND POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST - 1

Case 3:17-cv-05769-RJB Document 561 Filed 12/08/21 Page 2 of 5

1

issue is unnecessary and the Plaintiffs’ motion for post-judgment interest (Dkt. 525) should be

2

granted. GEO opposes an award of pre-judgment interest, arguing that the damages awarded in

3

this case were not for a liquidated claim. Dkt. 533. It maintains that under Washington law no

4

pre-judgment award is warranted. Id. For the reasons provided below, the Plaintiffs’ motion for

5

an award of pre-judgment interest should be granted.
DISCUSSION

6
7

State law applies to a Plaintiff's claim for prejudgment interest for claims brought under

8

state law, as is the case here. In re Exxon Valdez, 484 F.3d 1098, 1101 (9th Cir. 2007). The

9

MWA does not explicitly provide for an award of prejudgment interest.

10

In Washington, in the absence of an express statutory provision, the availability of

11

prejudgment interest depends on whether the claim is liquidated. Hill v. Garda CL Nw., Inc.,

12

191 Wn.2d 553, 573–74 (2018). “A claim is liquidated for purposes of triggering prejudgment

13

interest where the evidence furnishes data which, if believed, makes it possible to compute the

14

amount with exactness, without reliance on opinion or discretion.” Hill, at 573-74 (internal

15

quotation marks and citations omitted). “A claim is unliquidated, for instance, if the amount

16

must be arrived at by a determination of reasonableness.” McConnell v. Mothers Work, Inc., 131

17

Wn. App. 525, 536 (2006). The first issue to be considered is whether the Plaintiffs’ claim is

18

liquidated.

19

The evidence at trial permitted the jury to compute the amount of Plaintiffs’ damages

20

“with exactness, without reliance on opinion or discretion.” Hill, at 573-74. The evidence

21

showed that GEO recorded the days each detainee worked and provided the minimum wage in

22

Washington for the relevant years. That there is not a precise record of the hours worked is a

23

result of GEO’s failure to comply with the MWA, despite GEO’s agreement in the contract with

24

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRE-JUDGMENT AND POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST - 2

Case 3:17-cv-05769-RJB Document 561 Filed 12/08/21 Page 3 of 5

1

the federal government to follow state labor laws. (The MWA requires employers to keep time

2

records on the number of hours employees work. See RCW 49.46.070.) In any event, there was

3

evidence in the record about the number of unpaid hours worked. Even though the number of

4

hours worked was disputed, the necessary information to make that decision was set out in the

5

record. In Instruction No. 4, which is attached to this opinion, the jury was instructed that the

6

class had the burden of proving damages and it was charged that its “award must be based upon

7

the evidence and not upon speculation, guesswork or conjecture.” Dkt. 520, at 5. Once the jury

8

made the factual finding of the number of hours worked, the amount owed was computed with

9

precision: the number of hours worked x the applicable minimum wage – the $1/day already

10

paid to the detainees = $17,297,063.05.

11

The jury did not need to make a “reasonableness” finding; it did not award damages

12

based on what GEO reasonably should have paid the detainee workers. It was not asked to

13

decide a claim in equity, like unjust enrichment, as the Court was asked to do in Phase III of the

14

trial. Accordingly, the undersigned’s findings and conclusions on the State’s unjust enrichment

15

claim in Phase III are limited to that claim.

16

GEO points to Washington State Nurses Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,

17

196 Wash.2d 409 (2020) to support its assertion that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to pre-

18

judgment interest. In Washington State Nurses Association (“WSNA”), the Washington Supreme

19

Court’s held that a nurses’ labor union did not have associational standing to bring a claim for

20

damages for its members. Id. The Court there found that testimony from some of the nurses as

21

to the hours they worked and breaks they missed combined with expert testimony was not

22

sufficiently certain, easily ascertainable, or within the knowledge of the employer such that

23

speculation by the trier of fact was necessary. Id. It found that allowing the nurses’ union

24

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRE-JUDGMENT AND POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST - 3

Case 3:17-cv-05769-RJB Document 561 Filed 12/08/21 Page 4 of 5

1

associational standing was an error. Id. The Court noted that the requirements for associational

2

standing must be strict – associational standing to bring claims for damages in Washington

3

comes without the procedural and substantive protections provided for class action litigants. Id.

4

GEO fails to demonstrate that WSNA governs the result here. The WSNA Court did not

5

address pre-judgment interest under the MWA. It did not address whether a class, who by its

6

nature, would rely on representative class members and expert testimony to establish damages,

7

could receive pre-judgment interest. WSNA does not apply. GEO also points to Rekhter v. State,

8

Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 180 Wn.2d 102, 125 (2014). Rekhter, a breach of contract case, is

9

equally unhelpful.

10

There is no showing that the Plaintiffs waived their right to seek prejudgment interest.

11

The Plaintiffs requested a special verdict form and took exception to the Court’s use of the

12

general form. The Plaintiffs’ lawyers’ statements to the press do not change the analysis. The

13

Plaintiffs’ MWA damages claims are liquidated. They are entitled to an award of pre-judgment

14

interest.

15

The next issue to be considered is the amount of pre-judgment interest to be awarded.

16

In Washington, if an MWA claim is liquidated, the prejudgment interest is determined as

17

provided in RCW 19.52.020(1). Stevens v. Brink's Home Sec., Inc., 162 Wn.2d 42, 51 (2007).

18

Under RCW 19.52.020(1), pre-judgment interest is either 12% per annum or “four percentage

19

points above the equivalent coupon issue yield (as published by the Board of Governors of the

20

Federal Reserve System) of the average bill rate for twenty-six week treasury bills . . .” Pre-

21

judgment interest on an MWA claim is assessed at 12%. Stevens, at 51 (holding that trial court

22

did not err in awarding 12% per year in pre-judgment interest on MWA claim). The Plaintiffs’

23
24

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRE-JUDGMENT AND POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST - 4

Case 3:17-cv-05769-RJB Document 561 Filed 12/08/21 Page 5 of 5

1

expert Dr. Jeffrey Munson’s opinion, using 12% and computing the amount of pre-judgment,

2

interest is credible.

3
4

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ motion for an award of pre-judgment interest in the amount
of $8,087,663.57 (Dkt. 525) should be granted.
ORDER

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

IT IS ORDERED:


The Plaintiffs’ Motion for Pre-Judgement and Post-Judgment Interest (Dkt. 525)
IS GRANTED; The Plaintiffs are awarded:
o Pre-judgment interest in the amount of $8,087,663.57, a supplemental
judgment should be entered in that amount; and
o Post-judgment interest dating from November 2, 2021 until the judgment
is satisfied, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961, at the statutory rate of 0.14%.

The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and
to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.
Dated this 8th day of December, 2021.

A
ROBERT J. BRYAN
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRE-JUDGMENT AND POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST - 5