Erhart v. Bofi Holding Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a proposed judgment awarding damages and post-judgment interest to the plaintiff, Charles Matthew Erhart, and directed the Clerk to enter the judgment and close the case. The court denied Erhart's request to add pre-judgment interest at this stage, instructing him to file a noticed motion under Rule 59(e) if he wishes to pursue that relief.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Entry of Judgment awarding damages and post-judgment interest“Accordingly, the Clerk shall enter the accompanying Judgment and close this case.” | agree with court The court exercised its discretion to finalize the judgment based on the circulated proposed judgment and minor party suggestions. The decision to enter the judgment as proposed is a standard procedural step following the resolution of the underlying claims. |
Denial of request to add pre-judgment interest to the current Judgment“Therefore, if Erhart seeks prejudgment interest, the Court requests that he file a noticed motion to amend the Judgment under Rule 59(e).” | agree with court The court declined to add pre-judgment interest to the initial judgment entry because the issue was not fully briefed (Erhart did not propose language, and BofI had not responded). Directing the party to file a Rule 59(e) motion is a procedurally appropriate method to address post-judgment amendments or clarifications when the initial judgment is being entered. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a standard procedural directive to enter judgment. It correctly identifies that pre-judgment interest requires specific determinations (start date, rate, legal basis) that were not provided in the proposed judgment or the parties' minor suggestions. By directing the plaintiff to file a Rule 59(e) motion, the court preserves the plaintiff's right to seek this relief while ensuring the defendant has an opportunity to respond, which is procedurally sound.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CHARLES MATTHEW ERHART, Case No. 15-cv-02287-BAS-NLS 11 consolidated with Plaintiff, 15-cv-02353-BAS-NLS 12 ORDER ENTERING 13 v. JUDGMENT
14 BOFI FEDERAL BANK,
15 Defendant.
16 BOFI FEDERAL BANK, 17 Plaintiff, 18 v. 19 CHARLES MATTHEW ERHART, 20 Defendant. 21 22 23 The Court circulated a Proposed Judgment awarding Erhart damages and post- 24 judgment interest. (ECF No. 376.) Many of the parties’ suggested changes are 25 minor. The Court will incorporate some of them and direct the Clerk to enter the 26 Judgment. 27 Erhart also requested the Court add pre-judgment interest to the Judgment. 1 |{and the Court would need to determine when prejudgment interest began to run and 2 ||specify any interest rate(s). Erhart did not propose additional language for the 3 Judgment. And Bofl should have the opportunity to respond to Erhart’s request. 4 Therefore, if Erhart seeks prejudgment interest, the Court requests that he file 5 ||a noticed motion to amend the Judgment under Rule 59(e). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); 6 || see also Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 175 (1989). Any motion must 7 ||address Erhart’s entitlement to prejudgment interest, include proposed language for 8 ||the judgment, specify what law should apply, identify the date(s) the preyudgment 9 ||interest should accrue from, and suggest any interest rate(s). 10 Accordingly, the Clerk shall enter the accompanying Judgment and close this 11 case. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 A , 14 || DATED: September 30, 2022 ffi A 5 (Hiphan 6 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28