Opinion
21-4001-DDC-ADM
10-21-2022
URSULA LENHARDT, Plaintiff, v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DANIEL D. CRABTREE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On January 12, 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part pro se plaintiff Ursula Lenhardt's Motion for Default Judgment. Doc. 24. And, the court entered Judgment against defendant Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) in the amount of $60,000, plus post-judgment interest. Doc. 25. On September 27, 2022, plaintiff filed a document titled “Request to correct the by Defendant applied weekly Post-Judgment-Interest Rate of 0.41% into the correctly accrued annual Interest Rate of 21.32% for 52 weeks.” Doc. 41. Although difficult to understand, plaintiff's filing seems to confirm that defendant has paid her the $60,000 principal amount of the Judgment and “about $146.26 for 217 days” of post-judgment interest. Id. at 1; see also Doc. 43 at 1 (conceding in the Reply that plaintiff “received Defendant's check of $60,146.26” (emphasis omitted)). But plaintiff contends that defendant erred in calculating the amount of post-judgment interest she is owed. Doc. 41 at 1. She asserts that defendant erroneously applied a post-judgment interest rate of 0.41% instead of “the accurately accrued rate of 21.32% for one year.” Id. And, plaintiff contends, defendant “need[s] to pay the difference in Post judgment Interest[ ] of $7,558.40 for 218 days[.]” Doc. 41 at 1 (emphasis omitted).
Because plaintiff proceeds pro se, the court construes her filings liberally and holds them to “a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). But the court does not become an advocate for the pro se party. Id. Likewise, plaintiff's pro se status does not excuse her from complying with the court's rules or facing the consequences of noncompliance. See Ogden v. San Juan Cnty., 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994) (citing Nielsen v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994)).
Plaintiff attached to her motion two articles about the effect of dandelion extract on proteins found in the SARS-CoV-2 virus. See Doc. 41-1. The two articles aren't relevant to the request made by plaintiff's pending motion. It seems that plaintiff inadvertently included them with her filing. Thus, the court disregards them.
Defendant DNC has responded to plaintiff's motion. Doc. 42. Defendant correctly asserts that 28 U.S.C. § 1961 applies to determine the amount of post-judgment interest owed. Id. at 1. Indeed, our Circuit has held that “a federal rate of interest . . . applies where jurisdiction is based on a federal question,” like it is here. Guides, Ltd. v. Yarmouth Grp. Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 295 F.3d 1065, 1077 (10th Cir. 2002). Section 1961 of Title 28 of the United States Code provides that interest “on any money judgment in a civil case recovered in a district court” is “calculated from the date of the entry of the judgment, at a rate equal to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar week preceding the date of the judgment.” 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). Also, the statute instructs that interest “shall be computed daily to the date of payment” and “shall be compounded annually.” Id. § 1961(b).
As the court noted in its Order granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, the court has subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because plaintiff asserted a federal cause of action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Doc. 24 at 5 n.2.
Defendant's Response explains how it accurately calculated post-judgment interest under § 1961. Doc. 42 at 1-2. First, it recognizes that the court entered Judgment on January 12, 2022. Id. at 1 (citing Doc. 25). Second, defendant's Response correctly cites the “weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield for the calendar week preceding the date of judgment-the week ending on January 7, 2022-was .41%.” Id. at 1-2 (citing Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Data Download Program, H.15 Selected Interest Rates, https://www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/Choose.aspx?rel=H15). Third, defendant accurately explains that annual interest on the amount of the $60,000 Judgment at an annual rate of 0.41% equals $246. Id. at 2. Fourth, defendant divided the annual interest of $246 by 365 days, producing a daily interest rate of about $0.67 per day. Id. Fifth, defendant explains that it paid the Judgment on August 17, 2022, by sending plaintiff a check for $60,146.26, via Federal Express overnight delivery. Id. Sixth, defendant correctly asserts that a total of 217 days elapsed between the date of the Judgment-i.e., January 12, 2022-and the date that defendant paid the judgment on August 17, 2022. Id. Seventh, defendant calculated the post-judgment interest by multiplying the daily interest rate of $0.67 per day by 217 days for a total amount of accrued interest of $146.26. Id. Finally, defendant asserts that it properly satisfied the Judgment by sending plaintiff a check for $60,146.26, representing the $60,000 amount of the Judgment and $146.26 in post-judgment interest. Id.
The court finds that defendant properly calculated the post-judgment interest owed to plaintiff. Plaintiff argues that defendant erred by not applying an annual interest rate of 21.32%. But plaintiff never explains how she calculates the purported 21.32% annual interest rate. Also, she cites no authority supporting her assertion that a 21.32% interest rate applies to the post-judgment interest calculation. Instead, her argument conflicts with the plain language of § 1961 which requires the post-judgment interest calculation to use the “rate equal to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield . . . for the calendar week preceding” the date of the Judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). As already explained, defendant's calculation of the post-judgment interest complied with this provision of the statute.
The court recognizes that the statute provides that interest “shall be compounded annually.” Id. § 1961(b). But that provision doesn't apply here since defendant satisfied the Judgment within one year.
Also, plaintiff argues that defendant shorted her one day of interest. She contends that defendant owes her interest for 218 days because she didn't receive defendant's payment until August 18, 2022. Again, she cites no authority for her argument that defendant must pay post-judgment interest until her receipt of the payment. And again, her argument directly conflicts with the statute's language which provides explicitly that interest “shall be computed daily to the date of payment[.]” Id. (emphasis added); see also BP Expl. & Oil Co. v. Maint. Servs. Inc., 313 F.3d 936, 948 (6th Cir. 2002) (holding that “post-judgment interest ceased to accrue on the date [judgment debtor] unconditionally tendered payment of the full judgment amount” and not “on the date [judgment debtor] actually made payment into the court-maintained account” (emphasis added)); Caffey v. UNUM Life Ins. Co., 302 F.3d 576, 590-91 (6th Cir. 2002) (holding that plaintiff was entitled to post-judgment interest from the date of the judgment to judgment debtor's “issuance of the original check remitting full payment” (emphasis added)); McCoy v. Whirlpool Corp., No. 02-2064-KHV, 2008 WL 5110534, at *4 (D. Kan. Dec. 2, 2008) (holding that post-judgment interest ended when judgment debtor “tender[ed] . . . the full amount due under the jury verdict” (emphasis added)). Here, defendant correctly calculated post-judgment interest beginning on the date that the court entered the Judgment “to the date of payment” by defendant-i.e., when it “tendered” the $60,146.26 check via Federal Express to plaintiff on August 17, 2022-just as § 1961 requires. Id.
In sum, plaintiff hasn't shown that defendant failed to pay her post-judgment interest as the Judgment requires. To the contrary, defendant has established that it has satisfied the Judgment by paying plaintiff $60,146.26, representing the $60,000 amount of the Judgment and $146.26 in post-judgment interest calculated from the date of the Judgment to the date of defendant's payment. Thus, the court denies plaintiff's “Request to correct the by Defendant applied weekly Post-Judgment-Interest Rate of 0.41% into the correctly accrued annual Interest Rate of 21.32% for 52 weeks.”
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT plaintiff's “Request to correct the by Defendant applied weekly Post-Judgment-Interest Rate of 0.41% into the correctly accrued annual Interest Rate of 21.32% for 52 weeks” (Doc. 41) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.