Opinion
Civil Action No. 03-2107 c/w 03-2163 C/w 04-0340 c/w 04-0397 Section "C" (5).
April 19, 2005
ORDER
Before the Court is various claimants' Motion for New Trial or Alternatively Motion for the Establishment of Prejudgment Interest.
The Court entered its opinion in the bench trial in this admiralty case on February 11, 2005. The judgment did not award prejudgment interest. Plaintiffs Isaiah Johnson, Alexander Scott, Cherman Calice, Paul Dillon, Billy Dillon, Kevin Moses, Fredericho Cardriche, Hermann Johnson, Orvin Watford, Walter James, James Young, Wilbert Smith, and Kerry Parker (the "Frischhertz Claimants") brought their motion for a new trial, or alternatively, for pre-judgment interest, on February 22, 2005. Claimants Alfred Clayton and Gregory Taplette (the "Causey Claimants") joined in this motion on March 14, 2005. Christopher Johns, T.J. Jackson, Cleoca Brumfield, individually and as legal tutrix of her minor child Clyde R. Tennessee, and Donald Payne, Jr. (the "Kehoe Claimants") also joined in this motion on March 14, 2005.
Motion for New Trial
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) authorizes a court to grant a motion for new trial where the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, where newly discovered evidence is brought to the Court's attention, where the damages are excessive, or where a miscarriage of justice would result of the verdict were to stand. The moving claimants fail to argue, nor does the Court find, that any of these factors are present. Accordingly, the motion for new trial is denied.
Motion for Prejudgment Interest
With respect to the motion for prejudgment interest, the Court notes that neither the Frischhertz Claimants, the Kehoe Claimants, nor the Causey Claimants made any mention of prejudgment interest in their respective proposed findings of fact. The Court likewise overlooked the issue. However, the three groups of Claimants did pray for prejudgment interest in their original Complaints.
Defendants assert that the motions for prejudgment interest with respect to the Causey Claimants and Kehoe Claimants should be denied as untimely. A motion for prejudgment interest constitutes a Rule 59(e) motion to amend the judgment. Moore's Federal Practice 3D, § 59.30[2][c] (2004), citing Osterneck v. Ernst Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174-177 (1989). A Rule 59(e) motion must be brought within 10 working days of the entry of the final judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). The ten day filing period may not be altered, waived, or amended by the Court. 12 James WM Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice, § 59.31[2] (3d ed. 2004). The ten day filing period is mandatory and jurisdictional, and as such, an untimely motion must be denied. Furthermore, an untimely Rule 59(e) motion cannot be salvaged on the grounds that a co-party filed a timely motion. Id. at § 59.31[4], citing Hertz Corp. v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 16 F.3d 1126, 1129-33 (11th cir. 1994). Here, the judgment was entered on February 11, 2005. The ten day filing period for a motion to amend therefore expired on February 25, 2005. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a). The Causey and Kehoe Claimants filed their motions on March 14, over two weeks late. Accordingly, the Court has choice but to deny their motion to amend the judgment to award prejudgment interest.
The award of prejudgment interest in admiralty cases is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Harrison v. Flota Mercante Grancolombiana, 577 F.2d 968, 988 (5th Cir. 1978). The admiralty court also enjoys a broad discretion in setting the prejudgment interest rate. Gator Marine Service Towing, Inc. v. J. Ray McDermott Co., 651 F.2d 1096, 1101 (5th Cir. 1981). Discretion to deny prejudgment interest is created only where there are "peculiar circumstances" that would make it inequitable for the losing party to be forced to pay prejudgment interest. Noritake Co. Inc. v. M/V Hellenic Champion, 627 F.2d 724, 728 (5th Cir. 1980). When a trial court awards prejudgment interest without explicit reference to the "peculiar circumstances" rule, it usually does so because it has either made an implicit finding that there are no peculiar circumstances that would create discretion to deny prejudgment interest, or, if it has found such circumstances, the trial court has declined to exercise the discretion. Id. at 729. What constitutes peculiar circumstances depends on the facts. Id.
With respect to the Frischhertz Claimants, who filed their motion timely, Defendants Bywater Boat Works and Crescent City argue that the instant case presents a peculiar circumstance because the judgment amount was "substantially less than that claimed." See Inland Oil Transport Co. v. Ark-White Towing Co., 696 F.2d 321, 327-8 (5th Cir. 1983); see also Hebert v. Exxon Corp., 770 F.Supp. 314, 316 (E.D. La. 1991). The Court acknowledges that this can be a factor, but finds that the Frischhertz Claimants made their demands in good faith. Therefore, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to deny prejudgment interest. Furthermore, an award of prejudgment interest, the Court finds, would not be inequitable to Defendants.
The only remaining issues are the rate at which the interest should be set and the date from which it should start to accrue. The Frischhertz Claimants fail to address these issues in their briefs. The Court finds that further briefing is appropriate.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Alfred Clayton and Gregory Taplette's Motion for Prejudgment Interest is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Christopher Johns, T.J. Jackson, Cleoca Brumfield, individually and as legal tutrix for her minor child Clyde Tennessee, and Donald Payne, Jr.'s Motion for Prejudgment Interest is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Isaiah Johnson, Alexander Scott, Sherman Calice, Paul Dillon, Billy Dillon, Kevin Moses, Frederico Cardriche, Herman Johnson, Orvin Hartford, Walter James, James Young, Wilbert L. Smith, and Kerry Parker's Motion for New Trial, or Alternatively, for Prejudgment Interest, is GRANTED IN PART. Claimants are entitled to prejudgment interest from an accrual date and at a rate that is not yet determined, but are not entitled to a new trial.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Frischhertz Claimants shall bring a new motion to address the issues of rate and accrual date of prejudgment interest.