What is a Motion for Prejudgment Interest?

Useful Rulings on Motion for Prejudgment Interest

Recent Rulings on Motion for Prejudgment Interest

QUICK BRIDGE FUNDING, LLC V. MAXX ROOF LLC

Entitlement to prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees can be resolved by subsequent motions because they were not raised in Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

LUIS VASQUEZ, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC

And even assuming the parties dispute whether Plaintiffs were entitled to replacement or restitution pursuant to Civil Code sections 1793.2 and 1793.1, “a dispute concerning liability does not preclude prejudgment interest in a civil action.” (Boehm & Assocs v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 513, 517.) The motion to strike the prayer for prejudgment interest is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

LH TEXTILE, INC. VS COEVOLUTION MANUFACTURE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Plaintiff seeks judgment in the total amount of $34,797.40, comprising $30,718.50 demanded in the Complaint, $2,339.66 in prejudgment interest, $1,200 in attorney fees, and $539.24 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: September 29, 2020 ________________________________ Hon. Teresa A.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

BRENDA HARPER VS CHERYL SHAW SMITH, ET AL.

As of September 29, 2020, this comes to 1 year and 118 days, for total prejudgment interest of $29,256.96. Plaintiff, therefore, is entitled to prejudgment interest in this amount. III. Costs Plaintiff requests $872.96 in total costs. The following items make up these costs: (1) $516.45 in clerk’s filing fees and (2) $356.50 for service of process. These categories of costs are recoverable. Code Civ. Proc. § 1033.5(a)(1), (4).

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

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. 2.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

GLOBAL HAWK INSURANCE COMPANY VS BLUE LINE FREIGT, INC., DBA MIDWEST TRANSPORTATION, ET AL.

Default packet fails to state date of default on the contract for the start of prejudgment interest calculation. 3. Lack of declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(5); CIV-100 Form, item 8.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

TIMOTHY D. REUBEN, INC. VS REFAYAT ALI

Reuben Inc. also asks for post-award prejudgment interest from June 17, 2020 to September 28, 2020 in the amount of $7,230.98. (Motion at p. 7.) Post-award pre-judgment interest is authorized under Civil Code section 3287, subdivision (a). (Pierotti v. Torian (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 17, 27.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

DANNY SIAG VS JIM LORBER

Plaintiff seeks judgment in the total amount of $63,232.15, comprising $58,500 demanded in the Complaint, $4,183.15 in prejudgment interest, and $549 in costs. The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently supported his request with the submitted declaration and evidence. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request is granted, and the Court will sign the judgment. No appearance at the hearing is necessary. DATED: September 27, 2020 ________________________________ Hon. Teresa A.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

SG HOMECARE, INC. VS. VERIO HEALTHCARE, INC.

In a Minute Order dated July 2, 2020, the Court noted the following: The Court agrees with many of the objections asserted by Defendants, including objections that SG’s Proposed Judgment is overlong and contains much unnecessary detail and includes a number of findings that the Court has not made, including findings regarding award of costs and the identities of prevailing parties, a finding that Rowley is entitled to an award of attorneys fee against Eric Schrier, and a finding and award of prejudgment interest

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

KORB VS. ROMERO

Liability and Damages For All Non-Tort Causes of Action (1st, 2d, 4th, and 5th) The Court has reviewed all of the deemed admissions, and it agrees with plaintiff that they entitle plaintiff to judgment (on all causes of action without differentiation) in the following amounts:  Economic damages: $22,000.00  Statutory damages and penalties: $32,500.00  Prejudgment interest on the above items: $ 8,982.13 However, the Court does not include emotional-distress damages as to the non-tort causes of action,

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

BETTY LOUZA VS FAISAL AHMED, ET AL.

Prejudgment Interest In addition, Plaintiff agrees to strike all allegations relating to pre-judgment interest. Accordingly, Dr. Ahmed’s Motion to strike is GRANTED in its entirety. IV.CONCLUSION Olympia’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend as to the Fourth Cause of Action. Dr. Ahmed’s Demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend as to the Second Cause of Action. Olympia and Dr. Ahmed’s Motions to strike are GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

CLASSIC AUTO REPAIR, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS TRUSTEE OF THE ZION IDA FAMILY TRUST, DATED FEBRUARY 23, 2003 ZION IDA

Plaintiff was awarded specific performance for the purchase of the property, $54,000 in contract damages and damages incidental to specific performance plus prejudgment interest. The statement of decision was issued February 10, 2020, and judgment was entered August 22, 2020. On March 26, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for attorneys’ fees under Civil Code section 1717(a) based on the fee provision in Paragraph 16 of the parties’ purchase and sale agreement (Exh. 3-5.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

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

CHRISTOPHER ISLER V. TIM GILL

Finally, the Court awarded Plaintiff prejudgment interest from the date this action was filed. Plaintiff argues that while the Decision awards prejudgment interest under Civil Code section 3287(a), prejudgment interest for quantum meruit awards can be made by the Court pursuant to subsection (b). In opposition, Defendants argue that Plaintiff is not entitled to prejudgment interest.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB, AN INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE VS FRANCISCO FLORES CAMACHO, ET AL.

First, the prejudgment interest calculation is incorrect. Based on the dates and figures provided in James H. Aguirre’s declaration, the applicable per annum rate is $.96. This is calculated by taking seven percent of the claimed $5,000 in property damages and dividing it by 365 days in a year. The awardable prejudgment interest is $214.08.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

CHRISTOPHER ISLER V. TIM GILL

Finally, the Court awarded Plaintiff prejudgment interest from the date this action was filed. Plaintiff argues that while the Decision awards prejudgment interest under Civil Code section 3287(a), prejudgment interest for quantum meruit awards can be made by the Court pursuant to subsection (b). In opposition, Defendants argue that Plaintiff is not entitled to prejudgment interest.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

MARIA SANDOVAL VS HECTOR URIEL MARTINEZ

Paragraph 6 of the proposed judgment, however, requests judgment in the amount of $40,801.00, comprised as follows: $28,000.00 in damages, plus $12,366.00 in prejudgment interest, plus $435.00 in costs. Plaintiff must re-submit a corrected Form CIV-100 setting forth these amounts. 2. Exhibit C to Plaintiff’s declaration is comprised of text messages written in Spanish. No certified translation has been provided.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LINDA MARIE DE LA RIVA VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.

Although the court agrees with defendant that plaintiff is not likely entitled to prejudgment interest, the court declines to exercise its discretion to strike the prayer for prejudgment interest at the pleadings stage. Therefore, defendant’s motion to strike is denied in full. Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling and to answer the complaint within 30 days. Date: September 22, 2020 Honorable Stuart M. Rice Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

JK LAW FIRM APC VS JI WON LEE, ET AL.

Plaintiff seeks judgment against Defendants in the total amount of $47,595.30 consisting of $42,007.55 in damages, $5,060.00 in prejudgment interest, and $527.75 in costs. Plaintiff’s default prove-up papers are deficient. Plaintiff has failed to submit evidence sufficient to support the judgment sought. Here, Plaintiff seeks judgment against all Defendants in the amount of $47,595.30.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

HAGOP OGANIAN VS ZABEL OGANIAN

The Court previously granted a motion to strike Plaintiffs’ claims for prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees. Now, Defendant demurs to the first amended complaint, arguing that Plaintiffs failed to file the complaint within six months from the time their government claim was rejected. Plaintiffs do not oppose the demurrer, which is sustained. LEGAL STANDARD “It is black letter law that a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.” (Lewis v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CWR HOLDINGS LLC VS BOMEL SAN DIEGO EQUITIES LLC ET AL

On December 8, 2016, amended judgment was entered in this action as follows: Damages: $612,500 Prejudgment interest: $166,969.17 Attorney’s fees: $8,015.00 Costs: $435 Total: $787,919.17 Judgment Creditor/Assignee of Record WVJP 2018-3, LP (“WVJP”) now moves for the appointment of a limited receiver. Defendants Bomel and Mr. Rechnitz (“Defendants”) oppose the motion.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB, AN INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE, ET AL. VS YOLANDA GOMEZ

However, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s requested $256.12 in prejudgment interest cannot be requested. Plaintiff’s calculation of this prejudgment interest amount is incorrect. Plaintiff only seeks prejudgment interest for $5,000.00 of Plaintiff’s special damages. Seven percent of $5,000.00 is $350.00. $350 divided by 365 days is $.96.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

HILLSTAR INSURANCE COMPANY VS KYLA ASHLEY REEF ET AL

Plaintiff has provided an adequate calculation for prejudgment interest totaling $9,797.06. Plaintiff has satisfactorily explained its request for $609.60 in costs. As such, default judgment is properly awarded in Plaintiff’s favor and against Defendants for a total of $43,650.69. CONCLUSION The application for default judgment filed on June 3, 2020 is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB VS LAURICIA L

The Court finds Plaintiff’s counsel’s calculation for the requested prejudgment interest is incorrect. Plaintiff’s counsel declares the daily amount of prejudgment interest is $.32. That is incorrect. Seven percent of $35,012.77 is $2,450.89. $2,450.89 divided by 365 days in a year amounts to $6.71.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

POLARIS CENTRAL PARK, INC. VS BEL AIR INTERNET, LLC

Petitioner is also entitled to an award of statutory prejudgment interest on the amount issued by the Arbitrator. (See Britz, Inc. v. Alfa-Laval Food & Dairy Co. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1106-1107.) However, Petitioner has not submitted a calculation of the prejudgment interest it seeks. As such, Petitioner’s request is unsupported.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 63     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.