Opinion
No. CIV 03-1164 JB/LFG.
November 1, 2005
Jonathan W. Hewes, Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin Robb, P.A., Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Clayton H. Farnham, Drew Eckl Farnham, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, Attorneys for the Plaintiff.
Bruce Boynton, Boynton Law Office, Grants, New Mexico, Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant Agstar, Inc.
Ronald J. Segal, Sutin, Thayer Browne, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Thomas C. Mielenhausen, Lindquist Vennum P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, Minnesota, Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant Farm Credit Services of the Mountain Plains, PCA.
ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's Alternative Motion to Alter and Amend Judgment and Memorandum in Support, filed December 6, 2004 (Doc. 72). The Court held a hearing on this motion on April 8, 2005. The primary issues are: (i) whether the Court should amend the Judgment to reflect the proper amount of coverage limitation for business income and extra expense loss; (ii) whether the Court should amend the award for damage to perishable goods to reflect the proper amount of coverage limitation as well as the applicable deductible; (iii) whether the Court should amend the award for actual cash value of damaged property to reflect the applicable deductible; and (iv) whether the Court should award prejudgment interest. Because the Court granted in part the Plaintiff's earlier Renewed Motion for Judgment as to the business income and extra expense award and the perishable goods award, the Court need not address those issues in this Order. The Court finds that the Jury award for actual cash value of damaged property for $205,000.00 should be amended to reflect the applicable $10,000.00 deductible and thus reflect a final judgment of $195,000.00 for actual cash value of damaged property. In addition Farm Credit may not recover prejudgment interest. Prejudgment interest sought under NMSA 1978, § 56-8-4(B)(2005) is discretionary. See Nava v. City of Santa Fe, 136 N.M. 647, ___, 103 P.3d 571, 578 (2004);Sunwest Bank, N.A. v. Colucci, 117 N.M. 373, 377, 872 P.2d 346, 350 (1994). The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has construed a motion to amend a judgment to reflect prejudgment interest as a motion under rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Mascenti v. Becker, 237 F. 3d 1223, 1245 (10th Cir. 2001); Capstick v. Allstate Ins. Co., 998 F. 2d 810, 812-13 (10th Cir. 1993). To be timely under the rule, the claimant must file a motion to amend within ten days of entry of judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). The Court entered judgment on November 23, 2004. Farm Credit, although not explicitly asking for an "amendment" to the Judgment, in essence asks the Court to amend the Judgment to reflect prejudgment interest. See Response to Plaintiff's Alternative Motion to Alter and Amend the Judgment at 8-10 (Doc. 76). Farm Credit filed this Response on December 23, 2004. Farm Credit thus did not file its request within the ten-day time limit, and it therefore is untimely. "This time limit is mandatory and jurisdictional; therefore, the failure to meet the 10-day deadline is fatal and compels the denial of a Rule 59(e) motion." Memorandum Opinion and Order, Cellular Connection Inc., v. U.S. West Communications Inc., and U.S. West Dex, Inc., No. CV 00-440, filed January 30, 2002 (Doc. 111) (Hansen, J.) (citing 9 J. Moore, et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 59.31[4](3d ed. 2001)). Because the untimely request is fatal, the Court will not amend the judgment to reflect prejudgment interest.
This Order disposes of the motion at issue. The Court will, however, at a later date issue an opinion fully detailing its rationale for this decision.
Farm Credit specifically sought prejudgment interest under NMSA 1978, § 56-8-4(B)(2005). See Response to Plaintiff's Alternative Motion to Alter and Amend Judgment at 8-10. Although Florists' Mutual argued the issue under both § 56-8-4 and § 56-8-3, because Farm Credit only sought relief under § 56-8-4, the Court is reluctant to address § 56-8-4, under which relief was not requested.
IT IS ORDERED that Florists' Mutual's Alternative Motion to Alter and Amend Judgment is granted in part. The $205,000.00 award will be amended to $195,000.00 to reflect the $10,000.00 deductible. In addition the Court will not award prejudgment interest.