Erhart v. Bofi Holding Inc.

Opinion

CHARLES MATTHEW ERHART, Case No. 15-cv-02287-BAS-NLS consolidated with Plaintiff, 15-cv-02353-BAS-NLS ORDER ENTERING v. JUDGMENT

Defendant.

BOFI FEDERAL BANK, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES MATTHEW ERHART, Defendant. The Court circulated a Proposed Judgment awarding Erhart damages and post- judgment interest. (ECF No. 376.) Many of the parties’ suggested changes are minor. The Court will incorporate some of them and direct the Clerk to enter the Judgment. Erhart also requested the Court add pre-judgment interest to the Judgment. {and the Court would need to determine when prejudgment interest began to run and specify any interest rate(s). Erhart did not propose additional language for the Judgment. And Bofl should have the opportunity to respond to Erhart’s request. Therefore, if Erhart seeks prejudgment interest, the Court requests that he file a noticed motion to amend the Judgment under Rule 59(e). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); see also Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 175 (1989). Any motion must address Erhart’s entitlement to prejudgment interest, include proposed language for the judgment, specify what law should apply, identify the date(s) the preyudgment interest should accrue from, and suggest any interest rate(s). Accordingly, the Clerk shall enter the accompanying Judgment and close this case. A , DATED: September 30, 2022 ffi A 5 (Hiphan 6 United States District Judge