This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 04/24/2020 at 19:39:12 (UTC).

WANDA JIMENEZ VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES PROBATION DEPARTMENT

Case Summary

On 07/30/2015 WANDA JIMENEZ filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES PROBATION DEPARTMENT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB, DEIRDRE HILL, JOANNE O'DONNELL, HELEN I. BENDIX and RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9762

  • Filing Date:

    07/30/2015

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Other Labor

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB

DEIRDRE HILL

JOANNE O'DONNELL

HELEN I. BENDIX

RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Respondents

JIMENEZ WANDA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES PROBATION DEPART-

DOES 1 THROUGH 50

HARRIS MARCUS

Defendant and Appellant

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Defendants and Respondents

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES PROBATION DEPART-

DOES 1 THROUGH 50

HARRIS MARCUS

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES PROBATION DEPT.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

HILAIRE MCGRIFF PC

HILAIRE MIKA MARIE

APPELL BARRY M

APPELL BARRY MORRIS

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

KESSEL ELIZABETH M. ESQ.

KESSEL ELIZABETH MARY

 

Court Documents

Judgment on Verdict in Open Court

7/30/2019: Judgment on Verdict in Open Court

DIFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA AND PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS UPON GORDON, EDELSTEIN, KREPACK, GRANT, ELTON & GOLDSTEIN

1/10/2018: DIFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA AND PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS UPON GORDON, EDELSTEIN, KREPACK, GRANT, ELTON & GOLDSTEIN

Minute Order -

3/2/2018: Minute Order -

NOTICE OF COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES'S DOCUMENT PRODUCTION OF CONFIDENTIAL PITCHESS MATERIALS PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER

3/12/2018: NOTICE OF COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES'S DOCUMENT PRODUCTION OF CONFIDENTIAL PITCHESS MATERIALS PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER

Minute Order -

6/21/2018: Minute Order -

Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MIL 3

4/2/2019: Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MIL 3

Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MIL NO. 13

5/9/2019: Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MIL NO. 13

Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS

5/9/2019: Notice of Lodging - NOTICE OF LODGING DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS

CIVIL DEPOSIT -

10/19/2015: CIVIL DEPOSIT -

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF MIKA HILAIRE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF WANDA JIMENEZ' REPLY BRIEF TO HER MOTION FOR DISCOVERY PITCHESS PURSUANT TO EVID. CODE 1043-1047

2/8/2016: SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF MIKA HILAIRE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF WANDA JIMENEZ' REPLY BRIEF TO HER MOTION FOR DISCOVERY PITCHESS PURSUANT TO EVID. CODE 1043-1047

DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES' DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

3/22/2016: DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES' DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

DECLARATION OF EDITH CASTANEDA, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF REPLY BRIEF TO PLAINTIFF WANDA JIMENEZ' MOTION FOR DISCOVERY PITCHESS PURSUANT TO EVID. CODE 1043-1047

7/1/2016: DECLARATION OF EDITH CASTANEDA, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF REPLY BRIEF TO PLAINTIFF WANDA JIMENEZ' MOTION FOR DISCOVERY PITCHESS PURSUANT TO EVID. CODE 1043-1047

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO QUASH FROM THE RECORD. ETC

2/6/2017: ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO QUASH FROM THE RECORD. ETC

PLAINTIFF WANDA JIMENEZ' REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION FOR DISCOVERY PITCHESS PURSUANT TO EVID. CODE 1043-1047

4/10/2017: PLAINTIFF WANDA JIMENEZ' REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION FOR DISCOVERY PITCHESS PURSUANT TO EVID. CODE 1043-1047

Minute Order -

10/10/2017: Minute Order -

DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S FIFTH MOTION FOR DISCOVERY PITCHESS PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE CODE 1043-1047, MFMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

11/8/2017: DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S FIFTH MOTION FOR DISCOVERY PITCHESS PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE CODE 1043-1047, MFMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

PLAINTIFF WANDA JIMENEZ' APPLICATION AND MEMORANDUM TO SEAL PLAINTIFF'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY PITCHESS PURSUANT TO EVID. CODE 1043- 1047 AND THE SUPPORTING DECLARA

11/15/2017: PLAINTIFF WANDA JIMENEZ' APPLICATION AND MEMORANDUM TO SEAL PLAINTIFF'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY PITCHESS PURSUANT TO EVID. CODE 1043- 1047 AND THE SUPPORTING DECLARA

427 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/23/2020
  • Hearing07/23/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department 47 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion - Other Motion For An Award of Pre-Judgment Interest on Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/23/2020
  • Hearing07/23/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department 47 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Monetary Sanctions for failure to pay jury fees

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2020
  • Docketat 11:59 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 04/22/2020); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (Monetary Sanctions for failure to pay jury fees) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (Motion For An Award of Pre-Judgment Interest on Judgment) - Not Held - Rescheduled by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/17/2020
  • DocketReply (to Opposition to Motion for Award of Pre-Judgment Interest); Filed by Wanda Jimenez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2020
  • DocketOpposition (to Plaintiff's Motion for an Award of Pre-Judgment Interest on Judgment); Filed by County of Los Angeles (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2020
  • DocketDeclaration (of Sally Frontman in Support of Defendant's Opposition to Motion for Prejudgment Interest); Filed by County of Los Angeles (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
876 More Docket Entries
  • 09/16/2015
  • DocketNOTICE OF DEMURRER; DEMURRER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2015
  • DocketNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2015
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2015
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2015
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Wanda Jimenez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2015
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2015
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2015
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Wanda Jimenez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/30/2015
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1. SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT (FEHA); ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2008
  • DocketMinute Order

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC589762    Hearing Date: August 19, 2020    Dept: 47

Wanda Jimenez v. County of Los Angeles Probation Department, et al.

 

GIVEN THE CURRENT CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, THE COURT STRONGLY ENCOURAGES REMOTE APPEARENCES BY “LACourtConnect.” PLEASE MAKE SUCH ARRANGEMENTS IF YOU WISH TO APPEAR REMOTELY AT WWW.LACOURT.ORG/LACC/. NO OTHER TYPES OF REMOTE APPEARANCES ARE AVAILABLE FOR THIS PARTICULAR COURTROOM, INCLUDING COURT CALL. IF YOU APPEAR IN PERSON AT THE HEARING, YOU WILL BE SUBJECT TO ALL SOCIAL DISTANCING RULES, INCLUDING THE WEARING OF AN APPROPRIATE FACE MASK/COVERING (ABSENT ANY EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES) AS CONTAINED IN THE APPLICABLE GENERAL ORDERS ISSUED BY THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE L.A.S.C.

MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ON JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Wanda Jimenez

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant County of Los Angeles, erroneously sued as County of Los Angeles Probation Department

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff alleged that she was put into light duty as a result of suffering an on-the-job injury breaking up a fight between prisoners and that Defendant Harris, Plaintiff’s supervisor, began sexually harassing Plaintiff. Plaintiff was awarded $330,000 on a jury verdict, with “pre-judgment interest to be determined by the Court” and post-judgment interest at 10%, costs, and attorneys’ fees.

Plaintiff now moves for an award of prejudgment interest on the judgment.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Wanda Jimenez’s motion for an award of pre-judgment interest on judgment is GRANTED in the amount of $20,020.

DISCUSSION:

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant requests judicial notice of (A) the judgment in this case; (B) the notice of entry of judgment in this case; and (C) the notice of appeal filed in this case.

These requests are GRANTED per Evidence Code § 452(d) (court records).

Defendant’s Objections to Evidence

There is no authority holding that the Court must rule on evidentiary objections made in connection with any motion other than a motion for summary judgment or an anti-SLAPP motion. Accordingly, the Court declines to rule on these objections. The Court is capable of giving these documents their due weight, if any, in the context of this motion.

Analysis

Plaintiff seeks an award of prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code § 3287(a):

Every person who is entitled to recover damages certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation, and the right to recover which is vested in him upon a particular day, is entitled also to recover interest thereon from that day, except during such time as the debtor is prevented by law, or by the act of the creditor from paying the debt. This section is applicable to recovery of damages and interest from any such debtor, including the state or any county, city, city and county, municipal corporation, public district, public agency, or any political subdivision of the state.

(Civ. Code § 3287(a), bold emphasis added.)

The case law interpreting Civil Code section 3287 provides some guidance to its application . . . . As discussed above, "[t]he policy underlying authorization of an award of prejudgment interest is to compensate the injured party--to make that party whole for the accrual of wealth which could have been produced during the period of loss. [Citations.]" (Citation omitted.)

The court in Cassinos also said: "The test for recovery of prejudgment interest under [Civil Code] section 3287, subdivision (a) is whether defendant actually know[s] the amount owed or from reasonably available information could the defendant have computed that amount. [Citation.]" (Citations omitted.) "The statute [Civil Code section 3287] does not authorize prejudgment interest where the amount of damage, as opposed to the determination of liability, 'depends upon a judicial determination based upon conflicting evidence and is not ascertainable from truthful data supplied by the claimant to his debtor.' [Citations.]" ( Citation omitted.) Thus, where the amount of damages cannot be resolved except by verdict or judgment, prejudgment interest is not appropriate. (Citation omitted.)

(Wisper Corp. v. Cal. Commerce Bank (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 948, 960, bold emphasis and underlining added.)

Here, a jury returned a special verdict finding that Plaintiff was entitled to $230,000 in economic damages and $100,000 in non-economic damages, for a total of $330,000. (Declaration of Barry M. Appell, Exh. B [Judgment on Jury Verdict, at p. 2].)

“Amounts recoverable as wrongfully withheld payments of salary or pensions are damages within the meaning of Civil Code section 3287, subdivision (a).” (Currie v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1109, 1115.) Indeed, “without prejudgment interest the backpay remedy may lose a significant portion of its value, and the employee left less than fully ‘reimburse[d]’ . . . for his or her lost wages.” (Id. at 1117, citation omitted.) An award of prejudgment interest is not available for noneconomic damages, because those damages are “inherently nonpecuniary, unliquidated and not readily subject to precise calculation.” (Greater Westchester Homeowners Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles (1979) 26 Cal.3d 86, 103.) As to economic damages, however, [i]nterest is recoverable on each salary or pension payment from the date it fell due.” (Currie, supra, 24 Cal.4th at 1115.)

Defendant County of Los Angeles argues that Plaintiff’s motion is untimely because she should have made a specific request for prejudgment interest before entry of judgment. Plaintiff had, however, already requested prejudgment interest before the judgment was entered. In addition, the Court always has jurisdiction to correct or amend its orders, including the power, under CCP § 187, “to use all means to carry its jurisdiction into effect, even if those means are not set out in the code.” (NEC Electronics Inc. v. Hurt (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 772, 778.) Here, Plaintiff’s request may properly be considered.

Defendant also argues that the automatic stay pending its appeal of the judgment has divested the Court of authority to consider this motion. However, the “purpose of the automatic stay provision of section 916, subdivision (a) ‘is to protect the appellate court’s jurisdiction by preserving the status quo until the appeal is decided.’” (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 189.) The automatic stay “prevents the trial court from rendering an appeal futile by altering the appealed judgment or order by conducting other proceedings that may affect it.” (Ibid.) Here, the Court does not see any way that modifying the judgment to include a particular amount of prejudgment interest would have any effect on the pending appeal. If Defendant prevails on appeal, the judgment, including any prejudgment interest awarded, will be reversed. If Defendant does not prevail, the Court will have already awarded the prejudgment interest, without that award interfering with the pending appeal in any way.

Because Plaintiff had offered no guidance regarding the proper calculation of prejudgment interest herein, Plaintiff was ordered to file a supplemental declaration, with exhibits as necessary, specifying (1) the rate of interest that is applicable; (2) the date on which prejudgment interest began to accrue; (3) the date on which prejudgment interest ceased to accrue; and (4) Plaintiff’s calculation of the amount of prejudgment interest due, with the basis for the calculation shown; and (5) any other information necessary to arrive at Plaintiff’s proposed amount. Defendant was also permitted to file a supplemental brief explaining its objections to Plaintiff’s calculations, if any.

Plaintiff has now submitted the declaration of expert Mark Falkenhagen, who has calculated the prejudgment interest at $20,020. He used the 7% interest rate applicable to public entities and used two time periods for the lost economic damages: December 19, 2014 to April 30, 2016 and November 1, 2017 to May 5, 2019. (Falkenhagen Decl. ¶ 6.)[1] His calculations resulted in prejudgment interest of $21,713, less mitigation of damages of $1693, for a total of $20,020. (Ibid.) Although the jury had awarded Plaintiff $230,000 in economic damages, he used $216,864 as the amount for which he applied interest. (Id. ¶ 7.)

Because Plaintiff was ordered to submit a declaration and evidence, if necessary, Defendant was permitted to “file a supplemental brief explaining its objections to Plaintiff’s calculations, if any.” (Minute Order, 7/23/20.) Defendant has not raised any objections to these calculations. Instead, Defendant has repeated its argument that Plaintiff’s motion was untimely. The Court already addressed that argument in its tentative and did not invite additional briefing on that point.

Plaintiff’s motion for prejudgment interest is GRANTED in the amount of $20,020.

Moving Party to give notice, unless waived.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 19, 2020 ___________________________________

Randolph M. Hammock

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing.  All interested parties must be copied on the email.  It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.


[1] Additionally, on 8/7/20, the parties field a Stipulation and Order correcting the judgment issued in this case to allow only 7% interest on the post-judgment. 

Case Number: BC589762    Hearing Date: July 23, 2020    Dept: 47

Wanda Jimenez v. County of Los Angeles Probation Department, et al.

 

MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ON JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Wanda Jimenez

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant County of Los Angeles, erroneously sued as County of Los Angeles Probation Department

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff alleged that she was put into light duty as a result of suffering an on-the-job injury breaking up a fight between prisoners and that Defendant Harris, Plaintiff’s supervisor, began sexually harassing Plaintiff. Plaintiff was awarded $330,000 on a jury verdict, with “pre-judgment interest to be determined by the Court” and post-judgment interest at 10%, costs, and attorneys’ fees.

Plaintiff now moves for an award of prejudgment interest on the judgment.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Wanda Jimenez’s motion for an award of pre-judgment interest on judgment is CONTINUED to August 19, 2020. Plaintiff is to file, no later than August 5, 2020, a supplemental declaration, with exhibits as necessary, specifying (1) the rate of interest that is applicable; (2) the date on which prejudgment interest began to accrue; (3) the date on which prejudgment interest ceased to accrue; and (4) Plaintiff’s calculation of the amount of prejudgment interest due, with the basis for the calculation shown; and (5) any other information necessary to arrive at Plaintiff’s proposed amount.

Defendant may file a supplemental brief of no more than 5 pages by August 12, 2020, explaining its objections to Plaintiff’s calculations, if any.

DISCUSSION:

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice

Defendant requests judicial notice of (A) the judgment in this case; (B) the notice of entry of judgment in this case; and (C) the notice of appeal filed in this case.

These requests are GRANTED per Evidence Code § 452(d) (court records).

Defendant’s Objections to Evidence

There is no authority holding that the Court must rule on evidentiary objections made in connection with any motion other than a motion for summary judgment or an anti-SLAPP motion. Accordingly, the Court declines to rule on these objections. The Court is capable of giving these documents their due weight, if any, in the context of this motion.

Analysis

Plaintiff seeks an award of prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code § 3287(a):

Every person who is entitled to recover damages certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation, and the right to recover which is vested in him upon a particular day, is entitled also to recover interest thereon from that day, except during such time as the debtor is prevented by law, or by the act of the creditor from paying the debt. This section is applicable to recovery of damages and interest from any such debtor, including the state or any county, city, city and county, municipal corporation, public district, public agency, or any political subdivision of the state.

(Civ. Code § 3287(a), bold emphasis added.)

The case law interpreting Civil Code section 3287 provides some guidance to its application . . . . As discussed above, "[t]he policy underlying authorization of an award of prejudgment interest is to compensate the injured party--to make that party whole for the accrual of wealth which could have been produced during the period of loss. [Citations.]" (Citation omitted.)

The court in Cassinos also said: "The test for recovery of prejudgment interest under [Civil Code] section 3287, subdivision (a) is whether defendant actually know[s] the amount owed or from reasonably available information could the defendant have computed that amount. [Citation.]" (Citations omitted.) "The statute [Civil Code section 3287] does not authorize prejudgment interest where the amount of damage, as opposed to the determination of liability, 'depends upon a judicial determination based upon conflicting evidence and is not ascertainable from truthful data supplied by the claimant to his debtor.' [Citations.]" ( Citation omitted.) Thus, where the amount of damages cannot be resolved except by verdict or judgment, prejudgment interest is not appropriate. (Citation omitted.)

(Wisper Corp. v. Cal. Commerce Bank (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 948, 960, bold emphasis and underlining added.)

Here, a jury returned a special verdict finding that Plaintiff was entitled to $230,000 in economic damages and $100,000 in non-economic damages, for a total of $330,000. (Declaration of Barry M. Appell, Exh. B [Judgment on Jury Verdict, at p. 2].)

“Amounts recoverable as wrongfully withheld payments of salary or pensions are damages within the meaning of Civil Code section 3287, subdivision (a).” (Currie v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1109, 1115.) Indeed, “without prejudgment interest the backpay remedy may lose a significant portion of its value, and the employee left less than fully ‘reimburse[d]’ . . . for his or her lost wages.” (Id. at 1117, citation omitted.) An award of prejudgment interest is not available for noneconomic damages, because those damages are “inherently nonpecuniary, unliquidated and not readily subject to precise calculation.” (Greater Westchester Homeowners Ass’n v. City of Los Angeles (1979) 26 Cal.3d 86, 103.) As to economic damages, however, [i]nterest is recoverable on each salary or pension payment from the date it fell due.” (Currie, supra, 24 Cal.4th at 1115.)

Defendant County of Los Angeles argues that Plaintiff’s motion is untimely because she should have made a specific request for prejudgment interest before entry of judgment. Plaintiff had, however, already requested prejudgment interest before the judgment was entered. In addition, the Court always has jurisdiction to correct or amend its orders, including the power, under CCP § 187, “to use all means to carry its jurisdiction into effect, even if those means are not set out in the code.” (NEC Electronics Inc. v. Hurt (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 772, 778.) Here, Plaintiff’s request may properly be considered.

Defendant also argues that the automatic stay pending its appeal of the judgment has divested the Court of authority to consider this motion. However, the “purpose of the automatic stay provision of section 916, subdivision (a) ‘is to protect the appellate court’s jurisdiction by preserving the status quo until the appeal is decided.’” (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 189.) The automatic stay “prevents the trial court from rendering an appeal futile by altering the appealed judgment or order by conducting other proceedings that may affect it.” (Ibid.) Here, the Court does not see any way that modifying the judgment to include a particular amount of prejudgment interest would have any effect on the pending appeal. If Defendant prevails on appeal, the judgment, including any prejudgment interest awarded, will be reversed. If Defendant does not prevail, the Court will have already awarded the prejudgment interest, without that award interfering with the pending appeal in any way.

Although Plaintiff is entitled to an award of prejudgment interest, and the Court has jurisdiction to rule on this request, Defendant is correct that Plaintiff has offered no guidance regarding the proper calculation of prejudgment interest herein. Plaintiff has not provided any calculations at the proper rate of interest (nor specified the rate that applies, until the reply brief). Nor has Plaintiff stated the date on which prejudgment interest began to accrue or ceased to accrue. Expecting the Court to rely on a report that Plaintiff acknowledges is inaccurate in all of those respects does not provide the Court with any basis upon which to make the calculation.

Accordingly, the motion is CONTINUED to August 19, 2020. Plaintiff is to file, no later than August 5, 2020, a supplemental declaration, with exhibits as necessary, specifying (1) the rate of interest that is applicable; (2) the date on which prejudgment interest began to accrue; (3) the date on which prejudgment interest ceased to accrue; and (4) Plaintiff’s calculation of the amount of prejudgment interest due, with the basis for the calculation shown; and (5) any other information necessary to arrive at Plaintiff’s proposed amount.

Defendant may file a supplemental brief of no more than 5 pages by August 12, 2020, explaining its objections to Plaintiff’s calculations, if any.

Moving Party to give notice, unless waived.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2020 ___________________________________

Randolph M. Hammock

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer KESSEL ELIZABETH M. ESQ.