Caouette, et al. v. Presby, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: February 9, 1998
• Docket: CV-95-587-B
• Status: Published

Opinion

Caouette, et al. v. Presby, et al. CV-95-587-B 02/09/98

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Henry H . Caouette; Geo-Flow, Inc.

v. C-95-587-B

David W. Presby; Presby Environmental, Inc.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiffs Henry H. Caouette and Geo-Flow, Inc., brought

this action against defendants David W. Presby and Presby

Environmental, Inc., alleging patent infringement, breach of

contract, and unfair competition in violation of state and

federal law. After trial, the jury found in favor of plaintiffs

on the breach of contract claim, awarding $450,000 in damages.

Plaintiffs now move pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) to amend

the judgment in its favor to allow for an award of prejudgment

interest. Defendants have not responded to this motion. For the

reasons discussed below, plaintiffs' motion is granted.

DISCUSSION

The First Circuit holds that "when a plaintiff secures a

jury verdict based on state law, the law of the state governs the

award of prejudgment interest." Aubin v. Fudula, 782 F.2d 287,

289 (1st Cir. 1986), cited in Ahern v. Scholz, 85 F.3d 774, 800 (1st Cir. 1996). The jury awarded plaintiffs $450,000 in damages

based on their state law breach of contract claim. In addition,

in their respective pretrial memoranda, all parties agreed that

Maine law controlled the resolution of the breach of contract

claim. Therefore, Maine law controls the award of prejudgment

interest. See id.

Under Maine law, a prevailing party is entitled as a matter

of course to prejudgment interest on the verdict. Me. Rev. Stat.

Ann. tit. 14, § 1602 (West 1980 & Supp. 1997). The Supreme

Judicial Court of Maine interprets this statute as creating a

presumption that a prevailing party is entitled to such an award.

Pierce v. Central Maine Power Co., 622 A.2d 80, 85 (Me. 1993);

Simpson v. Hanover Ins. Co., 588 A.2d 1183, 1185 (Me. 1991). The

non-prevailing party bears the burden of proving that there is

"good cause" for a full or partial waiver of an award of

prejudgment interest. Simpson, 588 A.2d at 1185.

Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to $57,780.00 in

interest pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 14, § 1602(1)(B).

That provision states that in cases where the damage award

exceeds $30,000, the interest "shall be assessed at a rate ...

egual the coupon issue yield eguivalent ... of the average

accepted auction price for the last auction of 52-week United

States Treasury bills settled immediately prior to the date" on

- 2 - which the interest is calculated, plus 1%. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann.

tit. 14, § 1602(1)(A). Plaintiffs have submitted an affidavit

establishing the average 52-week Treasury bill rate as 5.42%

(plus 1% eguals a total of 6.42%) and have computed the interest

award accordingly. Defendants have done nothing to rebut the

presumption that a full award of prejudgment interest should

issue. Therefore, plaintiffs' motion is granted.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, plaintiffs' motion (doc. no.

103) is granted and the judgment is hereby amended accordingly.

SO ORDERED.

Paul Barbadoro Chief Judge

February 9, 1998

cc: Mary E. Fougere, Esg. Peter N. Tamposi, Esg. Douglas L. Ingersoll, Esg.

- 3 -