Opinion
Case No. 2:97-CV-230 TS.
June 20, 2003.
On March 31, 2003, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend Judgment to Include Prejudgment and Post Judgment Interest to Plaintiff. On May 2, 2003, Defendants responded and on May 16, 2003, Plaintiff filed its reply. On April 4, 2003, Defendants filed a separate Motion to Amend Judgment, arguing the Judgment should be amended to indicate that the Judgment was only against defendant Sporoptic Pouilloux and not against Orlux Distribution, Inc. Plaintiff responded on April 22, 2003, and Defendant filed its reply on May 5, 2003.
I. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Judgment to Include Pre and Post Judgment Interest:
a. Prejudgment Interest:
In Lefavi v. Bertoch, 994 P.2d 817, 823 (Utah Ct.App. 2000) (internal citations omitted), the court set forth the standard for prejudgment interest, stating:
Prejudgment interest is awarded "to compensate a party for the depreciating value of the amount owed over time and, as a corollary, [to] deter parties from intentionally withholding an amount that is liquidated and owing. A prejudgment interest award is proper when "the damage is complete, the loss can be measured by facts and figures, and the amount of loss is fixed as of a particular time." Further, a court may only award prejudgment interest if damages are calculable within a mathematical certainty. For damages to be calculable with mathematical certainty, they must be ascertained "in accordance with fixed rules of evidence and known standards of value, which the court or jury must follow in fixing the amount rather than be guided by their best judgment in assessing the amount to be allowed for past as well as for future injury, or for elements that cannot be measured by any fixed standards of value."
While an award of prejudgment interest might be appropriate under a breach of contract claim, the Court finds, that the damages in this case were not determined to a mathematical certainty. In effect, the amount of damages were not set in this case until the jury decided the amount. The damages in this case changed repeatedly. First, in the Complaint, the Plaintiff claimed damages in the amount of $342,000.00. Then, in the Pretrial Order, Plaintiff claimed $309,603.00 in damages. During trial, Plaintiff claimed yet another amount and admitted to mistakes in earlier estimates. Additionally, Plaintiff admitted during trial that its original figure for parts included costs attributed to another purchase order, order 685.
The Court finds unpersuasive, Plaintiffs reliance on Lefavi v. Bertoch, 994 P.2d 817 (Utah Ct.App. 2000) for the proposition that the damages were not uncertain because the amounts changed. In Lefavi the court found the defendant's failure to keep proper records nondispositive in awarding prejudgment interest to the plaintiff. The facts of this case are distinguishable because the Court is not concerned with the ability of either party to keep proper records, but rather, with Plaintiff's ability to prove its damages to a reasonable certainty.
Accordingly, the Court finds that, while the estimates on damages were a reliable enough basis for awarding damages, the estimates were too speculative to allow for the addition of prejudgment interest. The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Prejudgment Interest.
b. Post Judgment Interest:
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion for post judgment interest.
II. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT
Given that Plaintiff acknowledges that, based upon the jury verdict, judgment should only be against Sporoptic and not against Orlux, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Amend Judgment to indicate the judgment is only against Sporoptic. Accordingly, the Court directs the clerks office to enter judgment as follows:
1. That the Plaintiff recover from the defendant Sporoptic Pouilloux, S.A., the sum of $156,264.00 on its claim for breach of the agreement. Plaintiff is entitled to post judgment interest at the rate determined by law; and
2. That the Plaintiff take nothing against defendant Orlux Distribution, Inc. and that this action is dismissed on the merits as against defendant Orlux Distribution, Inc.
SO ORDERED.