Applied Companies v. Lockheed Martin Librascope
This text of 84 F. App'x 871 (Applied Companies v. Lockheed Martin Librascope) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Federal law governs issues of prejudgment interest in federal question cases such as this. United States v. Pend Oreille Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 28 F.3d 1544, 1553 (9th Cir.1994).
The district court did not abuse its discretion, see Burgess v. Premier Corp., 727 F.2d 826, 838 (9th Cir.1984), by denying interest for the time preceding entry of the original judgment.
Nor did the district court err by denying interest for the period between entry of the original judgment and entry of the postremand judgment, as there was no provision for such interest in this court’s mandate. See Briggs v. Pa. R.R. Co., 334 U.S. 304, 306, 68 S.Ct. 1039, 92 L.Ed. 1403 (1948).
The district court did not err by setting postjudgment interest at the federal rate for the period beginning after entry of the postremand judgment, August 21, 2002, until the remaining balance of the judg[872]*872merit, $447,897.25 plus costs, was paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
84 F. App'x 871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/applied-companies-v-lockheed-martin-librascope-ca9-2003.