Opinion
Nos. C 01-2201MJJ
September 25, 2003
DEFAULT JUDGMENT
On September 29, 2002, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment and awarded plaintiffs $2032.16 in damages along with prejudgement interest. The parties now dispute the method by which the prejudgement interest rate should be determined. Plaintiffs argue that the rate should be determined by 28 U.S.C. § 1961 as it existed on the date the claim arose. Defendant, on the other hand, contends that the Court should determine the rate under § 1961 in its current iteration.
At the time of loss, § 1961 read as follows: "interest shall be calculated from the date of the entry of the judgment, at a rate equal to the coupon issue yield equivalent (as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury) of the average accepted auction price for the last auction of fifty-two week United States Treasury bills settled immediately prior to." In December 2000, the statute was amended and interest is now calculated "from the date of the entry of 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."
Although, on its face, the statute only addresses post-judgment interest, it is also appropriat for determining the rate for prejudgment interest. See Saavedra v. Korean Air Lines, Ltd., 93 F.3d 547 (9th Cir. 1996). Moreover, § 1961 must be used to calculate prejudgment interest "unless the equitie of a particular case demand a different rate." In re Bloom, 875 F.2d 224, 228 (9th Cir. 1989) (citin Columbia Brick Works, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co., 768 F.2d 1066, 1071 (9th Cir. 1985)).
In support of their argument that the interest rate should be calculated under § 1961 as it existed a: the time the loss occurred, plaintiffs cite Motorola, Inc. v. Federal Express, 2000 WL 1677963. Motorola addressed two issues: (1) the time-frame in which prejudgment interest accrues ("the date of the . . . loss to the date of entry of judgment"); and (2) the point in time that the interest rate is determined ("the day of the . . . loss"). Id. at *1. Although Motorola does not directly address the issue before the Court, its focus on the date of loss is important because it indicates that the right to prejudgment interest becomes vested at that time, even though the right is not realized until the date of judgment. Because there is no evidence that Congress intended the 2000 amendment to § 1961 to be applied retroactively in the context of prejudgment interest, the Court is prohibited from applying the statute in such a manner. See Landgraf v. USI Flim Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1997: ("[i]f the statute would operate retroactively [e.g., impair rights a party possessed when he acted], our traditional presumption teaches that it does not govern absent clear congressional intent favoring such a result").
In Kaiser Aluminum Chemical Corp. y. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827, 838-39 (1990), the Suprem Court held that, in the context of post-judgment interest, "the interest rate . . . is to be determined as of th date of the judgment." However, the Court's decision was based solely on legislative history that i inapposite in the context of prejudgment interest. See id. at 389-40 ("on the date of judgmer expectations with respect to interest liability were fixed, so that the parties could make informe decisions about the cost and potential benefits of paying the judgment or seeking appeal")
Therefore, the Court enters default judgment against defendant in the amount of $2032.16 with prejudgment interest, which is to be calculated pursuant to § 1961 as it existed at the time of the injury. IT IS SO ORDERED
JUDGEMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.(X) Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issued have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.
IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED
Default Judgment entered against defendant, China Airlines in the amount of $2,032.16 with prejudgment interest.