“The finality of the judgment was suspended . . . when [the Defendant] filed motions for j.n.o.v. and for a new trial.”
How later courts described this case
- “The finality of the judgment was suspended . . . when [the Defendant] filed motions for j.n.o.v. and for a new trial.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
United States District Court
for the
Southern District of Florida
Jiangmen Benlida Printed Circuit )
Co., Ltd., Plaintiff, )
v. ) Civil Action No. 21-60125-Civ-Scola
)
)
Circuitronix, LLC, Defendant.
Order Granting Motion to Amend Judgment to
Specify Pre- and Post-Judgment Interest
Following the jury’s verdict awarding Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff
Circuitronix, LLC (“Circuitronix” or, sometimes, “CTX-US”) $7,585,847 in
breach-of-contract damages (Verdict, ECF No. 273) against Plaintiff and
Counter-Defendant Jiangmen Benlida Printed Circuit Co., Ltd. (“Benlida”), the
Court entered its final judgment on December 1, 2023 (J., ECF No. 294). On
December 28, 2023, Circuitronix timely renewed its motion for partial
judgment as a matter of law (Rule 50(b) Mot., ECF No. 297), under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), with the Court’s extending the briefing schedule
to allow time for the preparation of the trial transcript. The Court has since
denied that Rule 50(b) motion and now turns to Circuitronix’s motion to amend
the judgment to include prejudgment interest and to set the post-judgment
interest rate. (Circuitronix’s Mot., ECF No. 300.) Benlida opposes the motion
(Benlida’s Resp., ECF No. 303) and Circuitronix has timely filed its reply
(Circuitronix’s Reply, ECF No. 304). The motion is now ripe for review. After
considering the briefing, the record, and the relevant legal authorities, the
Court grants the motion (ECF No. 300) and orders Circuitronix to submit a
proposed amended judgment on or before April 19, 2024.
In its response, Benlida complains that Circuitronix’s motion is untimely.
Deeming Circuitronix’s request a motion to amend the judgment under Rule
59(e), Benlida maintains it was due “no later than 28 days after the entry of the
judgment,” making it due by December 29, 2023. (Benlida’s Resp. at 2 (quoting
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)).) But, says Benlida, since Circuitronix did not file it until
January 2, 2024, and because the Court is powerless to extend the Rule 59(e)
deadline, Circuitronix has forfeited its right to add interest to the judgment.
(Benlida’s Resp. at 2.) The Court disagrees. While the Court agrees with
Benlida that Circuitronix’s motion regarding interest should be deemed as
arising under Rule 59(e), the Court finds Circuitronix’s earlier filed Rule 50(b)
motion suspended the finality of the judgment entered on December 1. See
Osterneck v. E.T. Barwick Indus., Inc., 825 F.2d 1521, 1525 (11th Cir. 1987)
(noting that “a motion for discretionary prejudgment interest must be filed
pursuant to Rule 59(e)”), aff’d sub nom. Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S.
169 (1989); Wright v. Preferred Research, Inc., 891 F.2d 886, 888 (11th Cir.
1990) (“The finality of the judgment was suspended . . . when [the Defendant]
filed motions for j.n.o.v. and for a new trial.”). Accordingly, the Court finds the
earliest the judgment could be considered final was April 12, 2024, when the
Court denied Circuitronix’s Rule 50(b) motion. As such, the Court finds
Circuitronix’s Rule 59(e) motion, filed well before April 12, 2024, timely.
Turning to the substance of the motion, Circuitronix submits it is
entitled to prejudgment interest on the jury’s award under Florida law. As
Circuitronix points out, under Florida law, “when a verdict liquidates damages
on a plaintiff's out-of-pocket, pecuniary losses, plaintiff is entitled, as a matter
of law, to prejudgment interest at the statutory rate from the date of that loss.”
Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212, 215 (Fla. 1985). Indeed,
“[o]nce a verdict has liquidated the damages as of a date certain, computation
of prejudgment interest is merely a mathematical computation.” Id. Or, “even if
the jury did not specify a particular date of loss,” “[p]reverdict interest may be
awarded . . . so long as a date is clear from the record.” SEB S.A. v. Sunbeam
Corp., 148 Fed. Appx. 774, 794 (11th Cir. 2005).
Notably, although Benlida objects to the timeliness of Circuitronix of
request, Benlida does not challenge the merits of Circuitronix’s entitlement to
prejudgment interest. Unchallenged, then, is that the jury awarded
Circuitronix, to the dollar, the amounts Circuitronix sought for uncredited
overpayments of $4,760,847 plus payments of $2,825,000 Circuitronix diverted
to another company, at Benlida’s request. Nor does Benlida express any
disagreement that those amounts were owed no later than January 1, 2020.
And, as Circuitronix points out, choosing this date is not only conservative, in
Benlida’s favor, but also simplifies the interest calculation. Finally, Benlida
leaves Circuitronix’s interested calculations, running from January 1, 2020,
through November 20, 2023, uncontested.
As determined by Circuitronix, and uncontroverted by Benlida, the
accrued interest can be calculated as follows:
Rate period Interest Daily rate as Days in rate As Applied to Judgment
begin rate decimal period ($7,585,847)
1/1/2020 6.83% .000186612 91 $128,820.51
4/1/2020 6.66% .000181967 91 $125,614.01
7/1/2020 6.03% .000164754 92 $113,731.67
10/1/2020 5.37% .000146721 92 $102,396.28
1/1/2021 4.81% .000131781 90 $89,970.34
7/1/2021 | 4.25% | .000116438| 92 | $81,261.83 |
“i/ij2022 [4.25% | oooil6asa [| 90—«dSSCSCSCS~S~«S «9G.
}1/1/2023 | 5.52% | 000151233 | 90 | $103,250.73 |
Po TOTAL] $1,621,249.45 |
Under Florida law, then, the Court finds Circuitronix entitled to prejudgment
interest to compensate it for its liquidated loss of $7,585,847, as found by the
jury, as of January 1, 2020, in the reasonable amount of $1,621,249.45.
Lastly, Circuitronix asks the Court to specify, in an amended judgment,
the post-judgment interest rate. According to Circuitronix, the applicable rate, as
published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, is 5.05%.
Benlida does not object to specifying the rate in the amended judgment nor does
Benlida dispute that 5.05% is the correct rate.
In sum, as set forth above, the Court grants Circuitronix’s motion to
amend the judgment (ECF No. 300). Consistent with the Court’s findings, the
Court orders Circuitronix to file a proposed amended judgment, submitting a
Word.doc version to scola@flsd.uscourts.gov, on or before April 19, 2024.
Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on April 16, 2024.
[< N. Scola, Jr.
United States District Judge