What is a Motion for Prejudgment Interest?

Useful Rulings on Motion for Prejudgment Interest

Recent Rulings on Motion for Prejudgment Interest

PRIME STAFF INC VS PARTNERSHIP STAFFING SOLUTIONS LLC

In the event Cross-Complainant still wishes to obtain the additional damages, it must revise the amount for the compensatory damage and prejudgment interest and resubmit the default judgment accordingly. Further, the Cross-Complainant asks for attorney fees but only submits a declaration that states it "has incurred $139,945.05 in legal fees and costs to pursue its claims" without any proof or breakdown of the fees.

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2020

RICHARD PECH VS THOMAS E. MORGAN, III, ET AL.

Plaintiff seeks adjudication of an account stated in the amount of $758,522.06 plus prejudgment interest, and there remain triable issues as to the total amount owed. Accordingly, summary adjudication is denied. CONCLUSION The motion for summary adjudication is DENIED. Moving party to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are STRONGLY encouraged to appear remotely.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

EDPO LLC DBA EXPO PROPANE FKA EXPO PROPANE, INC. VS DESTINATION SHUTTLE SERVICES, LLC, ET AL.

Finally, defendants contend that plaintiff’s request for prejudgment interest on its quantum meruit cause of action is improper. CCP § 3287 states: “[a] person who is entitled to recover damages certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation, and the right to recover which is vested in the person upon a particular day, is entitled also to recover interest theron from that day. . . .”

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

JINKUN CHA, ET AL. VS PACIFIC EXPRESSWAY, INC., A CORPORATION , ET AL.

For prejudgment interest, as determined and accrued according to applicable statutes; … (Compl. at p. 4:7-17.) Viewsonic is correct that prejudgment interest is not permitted as far as Plaintiff seeks general damages. However, to the extent that Plaintiff claims special/economic damages prejudgment interest is Permitted in the discretion of the factfinder. (See Civ. Code § 3288; see also Greater Westchester Homeowners Ass'n v.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SERENA YOUNG VS PHILIP E HILL M.D ET AL

Second, the Court eliminated the $222,167 in prejudgment interest, as entitlement to interest should not have been submitted to the jury and was a matter for court determination. The Court scheduled a non-appearance case review re: verdict reductions for 7/10/20. Plaintiff agreed to the proposal, and submitted an amended judgment on 7/06/20 in accordance with the terms of the 6/10/20 order; the Court signed the judgment. Young and Hill have both appealed the judgment.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DEVIN WEISBERG VS JAURIGUE LAW GROUP, ET AL.

This judgment amount includes the $11,689.36 attorneys’ fees plus prejudgment interest and costs. (Weisberg Decl., Exh. I.) It is noteworthy that the disbursement of $10,000 was made almost a year before Weisberg established the enforceability and amount of his contractual lien ($11,689.36 attorneys’ fees plus prejudgment interest and costs). More importantly, Weisberg has not established how he has been harmed.

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2020

BRISTER V. YOUNG

In addition, the prayer for 20% prejudgment interest does not appear to be a lawful rate of interest.

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

DEAN J. ZAMANI VS. JOHN DINOVI, ET AL

Zimani also raises arguments about $133,000 in claimed management fees and prejudgment interest, but as addressed above, the motion lacks sufficient particularity regarding the prejudgment interest claim and no support for the management fees. The court therefore declines to consider the merits of the arguments. (Weddington Prods., Inc. v. Flick, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th 810.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ANPING ZENG VS LOS ANGELES FILM REGIONAL CENTER II LP ET AL

Zeng notes that the right to prejudgment interest in Marshall derived from the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibiting the unjust taking of private land for public use without just compensation, whereas here, the right to prejudgment interest stems from Civil Code § 3287.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

AMERICAN RECOVERY SERVICE INCORPORATED VS SAMUEL GARCIA

The prejudgment interest of $10,720.76 and costs of $571.00 remain unchanged. The court will sign the proposed order after confirmation of this tentative ruling.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

ANPING ZENG VS LOS ANGELES FILM REGIONAL CENTER II LP ET AL

Zeng notes that the right to prejudgment interest in Marshall derived from the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibiting the unjust taking of private land for public use without just compensation, whereas here, the right to prejudgment interest stems from Civil Code § 3287.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

RENE VILLA VS HANDLE FINANCIAL INC, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

As indicated by the allegations in to support the breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and prayer for relief, for the breach of contract claim and the breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim, Plaintiff seeks following damages: lost wages and fringe benefits, prejudgment interest, emotional distress, punitive damages. (FAC, ¶¶ 56-59, Prayer ¶¶ 4, 5, 6, 7.) As explained earlier, Plaintiff insufficiently alleges that a contract exists between the parties.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

REYMOND K OHANIAN VS GREGORY W WALKER

It is thus assumed that parties to a stipulated judgment which does not address an award of prejudgment interest did not intend prejudgment interest to be awarded. That is the case here. The offer that Ohanian served contained no provision for prejudgment interest. (Motion Exh. C.) The judgment entered pursuant to Walker’s acceptance did not contain an award of prejudgment interest because it matched the terms of the offer that Ohanian made. (Motion Exh. E.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

UP AND RUNNING SOFTWARE,INC., A MICHIGAN CORPORATION VS OBEN, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION

It is true that UNR merely states that it charged interest at the “lawful rate of 7% per annum”, and does not explain whether the interest is based on contract or as prejudgment interest. In reply, UNR notes that it is relying on pre-judgment interest. Reply at 5-6. Prejudgment interest is available on attachment and is owed from the time that the obligation to pay money begins. See Santa Clara Waste Water Company v. Allied World National Assurance Company, (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 881, 890.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION VS THE RELIANT PROPERTY GROUP, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

On February 10, 2020, the Court signed Plaintiff’s proposed judgment, ordering that: “Judgment shall be entered in favor of Wells Fargo and against Reliant as set forth in the following amounts: Principal amount: $43,323.87 Attorneys’ fees per contract: $1,689.72 Costs per contract: $1,006.51 Prejudgment interest per Cal. Civ.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

JENNIFER RUSH VS KATHRYN IRELAND, ET AL.

Motion to Strike—DENY Prejudgment interest—DENY. CC §3287(a) allows for recovery of prejudgment interest where the damages are certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation. CC §3288 provides, for recovery of prejudgment interest “in an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, and in every case of oppression, fraud or malice, interest may be given, in the discretion of the jury.”

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CHIN-HUA YANG VS JIANQIANG GU, ET AL.

Under section 6(e) of the Stipulation, plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest on the entire stipulated sum of $500,000 from March 15, 2019 to March 11, 2020 at the annual rate of 10%, plus costs of suit. Accordingly, the judgment shall include $49,452.05 in prejudgment interest, pursuant to the calculation set forth in counsel for plaintiff’s declaration re: interest.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

STEVEN OPPENHEIMER, ET AL. VS MARIA LUISA ACOSTA

The motion to strike the claim for prejudgment interest in the prayer on page 11, paragraph 3 is GRANTED. (Curtis v. State of California ex rel. Dept. of Transportation (1982) 128 Cal. App. 3d 668, 686). Plaintiffs’ claimed damages are not certain. Defendant Centinela Storage Associates to answer within 20-days. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KELLY SLATER WAVE COMPANY, LLC VS JERRY JAMES

Plaintiff seeks judgment in the total amount of $333,637.92, comprising $235,915.81 demanded in the Complaint, $73,723.84 in prejudgment interest, $22,135.27 in attorney fees, and $863 in costs. The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently supported its request with the submitted declarations and evidence. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request is granted, and the Court has signed the judgment. No appearance at the hearing is necessary. DATED: November 9, 2020 ________________________________ Hon. Teresa A.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

SMITH VS PRESTIGE INTERNATIONAL HEARING RE: MOTION TO/FOR STRIKE PORTIONS OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT BY BARKER PACIFIC GROUP INC

Moot in light of ruling on demurrer; however, the court makes the following observation; “prejudgment interest under section 3291 is not an element of damages and must be claimed by memorandum of costs under section 1034.” (Jones v. John Crane, Inc. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 990, 1012.) If Plaintiff does in fact provide a CCP §998 offer that is rejected by defendant and succeeds at trial, nothing precludes her from seeking that applicable interest at a later time.

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2020

NIA LOWE CASSELMAN VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC

Prejudgment Interest Civ. Code § 3287 provides that every person “who is entitled to recover damages certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation, and the right to recover which is vested in him upon a particular day is entitled also to recover interest thereon from that day[.]” where the amount of damages cannot be resolved except by verdict or judgment, prejudgment interest is not appropriate. (Wisper Corp. N.V. v. California Commerce Bank (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 948, 960.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2020

KWAN KI KIM, ET AL. VS THE TERRACES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

Lastly, State Farm moves to strike Plaintiffs’ request for prejudgment interest. Again, the Court does not find that this is improper. The question of whether Plaintiffs are entitled to prejudgment interest does not need to be determined at this stage in the pleadings. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the Court sustains State Farm’s demurrer to the third, fourth, fifth, and seventh causes of action of the FAC, without leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

THOMAS A STABEN VS. IRA S SHORE INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE IRA S SHORE REVOCABLE TRUST DATED JANUARY 14 1997

The Motion to Strike Request for Prejudgment Interest and Interest on Sum of Damages is denied on the ground that a showing of when the obligation became due is not required at this stage of the proceeding and in light of the Court's ruling on the Demurrer.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

JOHANNES ZUURVEEN ET AL VS LA COUNTY DEPT OF HEALTH SERVICE

The County prays for damages of $5,677,360 as well as prejudgment interest and attorney fees. The elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are (1) the existence of the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) resulting damages to plaintiff. (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

TOM ST TAN ET AL VS HERA RAMOS ET AL

: [X] yes[ ] no [X] Compensatory: $ 120,000.00 [ ] Damages Special: $ General: $ [X] Interest: $ 26,663.00 [X] Costs: $ 1,055.00 [ ] Attorney’ Fees: $ Total: $ 147,718.00 [X] INTEREST COMPUTATIONS (CRC 3.1800(a)(3)) Based on the total damages of $120,000.00 suffered by Plaintiffs, the prejudgment interest is accumulated to be $26,663.00 starting from December 1, 2017, ending on February 20, 2020, with 10 % per annum. ($32.8767 per day, 811 days for the time periods. 811 days x $32.8767 = 26,663.0037

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 66     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.