What is a Motion for Prejudgment Interest?

Useful Rulings on Motion for Prejudgment Interest

Recent Rulings on Motion for Prejudgment Interest

JOSE AGUILERA VS 5 STAR DELIVERY INC

Prejudgment interest commences on the date of breach, not the date the loans were made. (Watson Bowman Acme Corp. v. RGW Construction, Inc. (2015) 2 Cal.App.5th 279, 293.) Plaintiff seeks interest from August 24, 2015 on the third loan agreement, which is the date the loan agreement was made. ANALYSIS Yes (10/26/18) Default Entered. (JC Form CIV-100.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

YOUNGMEE MERRICK VS EUNHEE CHOI

Plaintiff incorrectly put the annual interest amount for “prejudgment interest” and did not add the amount in the total compensatory damages. The $39,433.33 amount in interest should rather be included as part of the total compensatory damages. Further, it is unclear from her statement whether she is pursuing prejudgment interest amounts at all. See Civ. Code, § 3287; North Oakland Medical Clinic v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

AMERICAN CINEMA INTERNATIONAL, INC. VS HANNIBAL CLASSICS, INC.

Petitioner also seeks prejudgment interest, costs, and attorney’s fees. Legal standard “Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award.” (Code Civ. Proc., §1285.) The petition must “(a) [s]et forth the substance of or have attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate unless the petitioner denies the existence of such an agreement. (b) Set forth the names of the arbitrators.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

SAMANTHA AGUILAR, ET AL. VS MONIKA GEISZ-BENITEZ, ET AL.

Pre-Judgment Interest California Civil Code § 3287 provides for prejudgment interest for damages that are certain or capable of being made certain by calculation. (See Civ. Code § 3287(a).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

STEVEN POSEN, ET AL. VS DESILU STUDIOS, INC., ET AL.

Plaintiffs to submit a revised judgment that reflects the new prejudgment interest amounts.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JEAN NDJONGO VS HENRY M. WILLIS, ET AL.

Defendants also argue that Plaintiff cannot recover prejudgment interest because the TAC does not allege a specific amount or “facts suggesting the damages could be calculated with certainty from any particular date[.]” (Motion at p. 8.) However, prejudgment interest may give given, at the discretion of the jury, in cases of fraud. (Civ. Code, § 3288.) Because Plaintiff’s fraud claim survives demurrer, it provides a basis for seeking prejudgment interest.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

GOLOVKO VS. NORTON

Furthermore, prejudgment interest for “costs” (copying and property damage) are not allowable costs. (CCP § 3291; Bean v. Pacific coast Elevator Corp. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1423, 1429-31.) Therefore, the total costs claimed by the Plaintiff ($14,073.85) are reduced by the total of the amounts described above totaling $2246.68. Based upon the reduction for the disallowed costs discussed above, The total allowable costs are reduced to a total of $11,827.17.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

U. S. FOODS, A CORPORATION VS CHUCKWAGON SMOKIE'S LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Plaintiff may submit an amended judgment showing unpaid prejudgment interest up to the date of the Judgment and an amended total judgment. Attorney Fees Plaintiff requests attorney fees in the total amount of $1,420.68. Kavitz attests that Plaintiff requests attorney fees pursuant to the Agreement, which provides that Defendant will pay all expenses in connection with enforcement of the Agreement, including attorney fees. (Kavitz Decl. ¶¶ 13-15.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

LANA SIEU NGU VS CITY BAIL BONDS ET AL

Moreover, there were several post judgment motions relating to fees and costs, and no amount of prejudgment interest was litigated in any of those motions. Plaintiff did not submit any calculation of prejudgment interest to be included in the Judgment. None of the rulings of the court included amounts for prejudgment interest. As the “damages” awarded were restitution, Plaintiff has not cited authority entitling her to prejudgment interest.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

JIANG QI VS BLUESTAR EXPRESS GROUP INC.

On March 10, 2020 an “Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Costs and Prejudgment Interest” was filed; that day, an Amended Judgment was filed. On March 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed and mail-served a Notice of Entry of Amended Judgment.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

MIRELES VS. LUPERCIO

Item 16 – GRANTED (Tax $119,498.79) Plaintiff seeks prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code § 3291, which allows a plaintiff to recover interest on the judgment at a rate of 10 percent per annum calculated from the date of plaintiff’s first offer, if plaintiff makes a CCP § 998 offer that the defendant does not accept and plaintiff obtains a more favorable judgment. Since Plaintiff’s CCP § 998 Offer is invalid, Plaintiff is not entitled to recover prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code § 3291.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

RA WOOD, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS WEST WOOD PRODUCTS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Motion to Strike WWP moves to strike RAW’s requests for prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees. Attorneys’ fees are recoverable “only when specifically authorized by statute, contract, or law.” (Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection. v. LeBrock (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1137, 1140.) RAW has not adequately pled a basis for attorneys’ fees. As to prejudgment interest, Civil Code §§ 3288 and 3287(a), cited by both parties, allows the potential recovery of prejudgment interest.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

COMERICA BANK, A TEXAS CORPORATION VS CARLOS H. MONTENEGRO, M.D., INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Plaintiff seeks judgment in the total amount of $63,134.88, comprising $39,641.24 demanded in the Complaint, $982.98 in late fees, $20,188.25 in prejudgment interest, $1,579.24 in attorney fees, and $743.17 in costs. The Court notes a number of defects with the submitted default judgment package. Plaintiff has not provided complete interest calculations pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a)(3).

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

GRABEL CHINO HILLS, LLC VS JESUS P. SARABIA, ET AL.

Plaintiff seeks judgment in the total amount of $318,885.41, comprising $298,498.46 demanded in the Complaint, $11,631.99 in prejudgment interest, $8,119.96 in attorney fees, and $635 in costs. The Court notes a number of defects with the submitted default judgment package. First, Plaintiff failed to include the mandatory Request for Entry of Default (Form CIV-100) setting forth the basis for his request for default judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

VERTAFORE, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION VS KLOOMA HOLDING INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

., Plaintiff’s performance, Defendant Klooma Holdings, Inc.’s breach, and Plaintiff’s damages, inclusive of prejudgment interest, attorneys fees and costs. The default judgment as to Defendant Klooma Holdings Inc. is GRANTED as requested. However, as to Defendant Klooma Originals Inc. (Doe 1) (“Originals”) and Defendant Gary Merisier (“Merisier”), the declaration of Maggie Warren does not attest to entry into any contract with Originals or Merisier.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

TEAM YOUNG, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS CHIOU INVESTMENTS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

(b), a request for default prejudgment interest on a contractual matter is 10% unless otherwise provided by the contract between the parties. Here, Plaintiff asserts interest in the amount of $9,696.00. (Decl. of Interest, p. 2.) Interest is calculated in the amount of 10% per annum for a period of 30 months, beginning on March 26, 2017. (Decl. of Interest, p. 2.) Plaintiff’s invoice, however, states that the original invoice date was May 30, 2017. (Complaint, Exh. B.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ALEXANDER NABIL BASSILY, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC

The Court notes that in Kia’s reply, Kia includes an additional request to strike Plaintiffs’ prayer for prejudgment interest. Because this request was not contained in Kia’s moving papers, the Court declines to consider its merits. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court sustains Kia’s demurrer in part and overrules Kia’s demurrer in part. The demurrer to the fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action is sustained with leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

DA NEIBRU LAND AND DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC V. WESTERN AG &TURF, INC.

Explanation: Defendant moves to strike the prayer for prejudgment interest, contending that Civil Code section 3288 only permits an award of prejudgment interest in actions not arising from contract, and that Civil Code section 3287, subdivision (a), only allows prejudgment interest where the damages are certain or capable of being made certain by calculation.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

CITY OF LOS ANGELES VS RDB LA GROUP, INC.

Default is entered in the amount of $36,019.11 consisting of $32,068.56 in damages, $1,897.76 in prejudgment interest, $1,000.00 in attorney fees, and $675.00 in costs. Plaintiff must e-file a corrected proposed judgment prior to the hearing. The parties are strongly encouraged to attend all scheduled hearings by telephone or CourtCall. All social distancing protocols will be observed at the Courthouse and in the courtrooms.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ZEINA PRIETO VS RAYMOND M TASH D D S ET AL

Rather, they simply selected the amount [plaintiff] had claimed as damages in the underlying lawsuit, plus prejudgment interest, attorney fees, and costs…. [h]ere, the judgment could have been enforceable if it had been designed to encourage [defendant] to make its settlement payments on time, and to compensate [plaintiff] for its loss of use of the money plus its reasonable costs in pursuing the payment.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

BOHM WILDISH, LLP V. TERESA ROEBUCK, TRUSTEE OF THE SHELL BEACH TRUST SETTLEMENT

The principal amount of the judgment was $100,000, plus prejudgment interest of $35,866.60, attorney’s fees pursuant to motion to be filed, costs pursuant to a memorandum of costs to be filed. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 917.1, subdivision (b), one and one-half times the amount of the judgment is $203,799.90, and two times the amount of the judgment is $271,733.20.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

MUFG UNION BANK V. CREEGAN + D’ANGELO, ET AL.

Judgment shall be entered for Plaintiff and against Defendants Creegan + D’Angelo and Jones for a total sum of $71,496.79, consisting of $70,845.59 in principal and $651.20 in accrued prejudgment interest and $12,522 in fees and costs pursuant to that agreement. These amounts represent the sums agreed to in the settlement agreement, less the payments made prior to the default.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

FIVE TOWER, LLC. VS CHOES FASHION INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Default judgment is entered in the amount of $34,250.15 consisting of $30,256.88 in damages, $2,087.56 in prejudgment interest, $1,300.71 in attorney fees, and $505.00 in costs. Plaintiff must file a corrected proposed judgment prior to the hearing. Parties are strongly encouraged to attend all scheduled hearings via telephone or CourtCall. All social distancing protocols will be followed in the Courthouse and the courtroom.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

EXCEL RESIDENTIAL SERVICES INC ET AL VS JOSEPH S KIM ET AL

Similarly, Plaintiffs set forth the total damages requested, noting that the total is “inclusive of prejudgment interest.” But to conform to Form JUD-100, prejudgment interest should still be specified by percentage and amount. Third, Plaintiffs did not provide any evidence proving up their damages.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

FORWARDLINE FINANCIAL, LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS WC FENCING & BOBCAT SERVICES CORP, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL.

The Russian Judgment does not provide for prejudgment interest. (See Compl., Exh. 6.) So, Plaintiff is not entitled to prejudgment interest. Thus, Defendant’s motion to strike on this ground is granted. Based on the foregoing, the Court strikes Plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief, ¿ 3 of the Complaint. 3. Leave to Amend Plaintiff has 20 days’ leave to amend the Complaint pursuant to this Court order.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 57     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.