Omni Financial, LLC v. Global Petroleum, LLC

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 SAN JOSE DIVISION 5 6 OMNI FINANCIAL, LLC, Case No. 19-cv-00031-BLF

7 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 8 v. MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF AMENDED DEFAULT JUDGMENT 9 GLOBAL PETROLEUM, LLC, a AGAINST DEFENDANTS EDWARD Minnesota limited liability company; FORTE AND PRECISE 10 SUZETTE JEREZ, aka SUZETTE JEREZ- CONSTRUCTION & NEAL; EDWARD FORTE, Individually DISMANTLEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., 11 and as Trustee of the Forte Family Trust; AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT and PRECISE CONSTRUCTION & 12 DISMANTLEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., an [Re: ECF 46] Illinois corporation doing business as 13 PRECISE CONSTRUCTION, 14 Defendants.

15 16 On October 31, 2019, the Court issued an order granting default judgment in favor of 17 Plaintiff Omni Financial, LLC (“Omni”) and against Defendants Edward Forte (“Forte”) and 18 Precise Construction & Dismantlement Systems, Inc. (“Precise Construction”). See Order 19 Granting Motion for Default Judgment, ECF 44. The Court entered a Default Judgment against 20 Forte and Precise Construction in the amount of “$1,375,000 plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and 21 costs subject to proof,” and it directed Omni to submit a supplemental brief regarding attorneys’ 22 fees and costs along with a proposed amended default judgment. See Order Granting Motion for 23 Default Judgment, ECF 44; Default Judgment, ECF 45. Omni submitted a supplemental brief and 24 a proposed amended judgment on November 13, 2019. See Supplemental Brief, ECF 46; 25 Proposed Amended Judgment, ECF 46-1. 26 Omni’s supplemental brief and attached billing records establish that reasonable attorneys’ 27 fees in the amount of $15,872.50, and reasonable costs in the amount of $825.24, were expended 1 attorneys’ fees in the amount of $15,872.50 and costs in the amount of $825.24, for a total award 2 || of attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $16,697.74 against Defendants Forte and Precise 3 Construction. The Court will enter an amended default judgment reflecting that award 4 || concurrently with this order. 5 Omni’s proposed amended judgment provides for post-judgment interest “at the statutory 6 rate of 10.0% per annum.” See Proposed Amended Judgment, ECF 46-1. Presumably, the 7 || referenced “statutory rate” is the California statutory rate of “10 percent per annum on the 8 || principal amount of a money judgment remaining unsatisfied.” Cal. Civ. P. Code § 685.010(a). 9 || However, post-judgment interest in this case is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961, which provides that 10 “[i]nterest shall be allowed on any money judgment in a civil case recovered in a district court,” 11 and that “[s]uch interest shall be calculated from the date of the entry of the judgment, at a rate 12 || equal to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield . . . for the calendar week 13 preceding [ | the date of the judgment.” 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). 14 “An exception to § 1961 exists when the parties contractually agree to waive its 3 15 application.” Fid. Fed. Bank, FSB vy. Durga Ma Corp., 387 F.3d 1021, 1023 (9th Cir. 2004). a 16 || Thus, where the parties execute an agreement containing “an express, mutually-agreed upon 3 17 interest rate,” such rate may be awarded in lieu of the rate specified in § 1961. See id. A general 18 choice-of-law clause in an agreement is not sufficient to displace § 1961, however. See id. In the 19 || present case, Omni has not directed the Court to any language in the guaranty contracts at issue 20 || that could be construed as waiving application of § 1961, and the Court has found no such 21 language in reviewing those guaranty contracts. Accordingly, the Court AWARDS post-judgment 22 interest at the federal statutory rate set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). The Court will include that 23 award of post-judgment interest in the amended default judgment entered concurrently with this 24 || order. 25 / 26 Dated: November 14, 2019 NM ty) BETH LABSON FREEMAN 27 United States District Judge 28