C.W. ROBERTS CONTRACTING, INC.
v.
JOHNSON BROS. CORPORATION
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
C.W. Roberts Contracting sought pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and attorney's fees following a successful motion to correct an arbitration award. The district court granted the motion in part and denied in part, awarding only post-judgment interest at the federal statutory rate while denying pre-judgment interest and attorney's fees based on the arbitrator's findings.
C.W. Roberts is not entitled to pre-judgment interest or attorney's fees, as the arbitrator determined there was no prevailing party. However, C.W. Roberts is entitled to post-judgment interest at the federal statutory rate of 3.65% per annum from the date of entry of judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a).
“the claimant is entitled to post-judgment interest at the applicable federal statutory rate from the date of the entry of the judgment”
Establishes that post-judgment interest is automatically available as a matter of law regardless of arbitrator's discretion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceC.W. Roberts Contracting, Inc. successfully moved to correct an arbitration award against Johnson Bros. Corporation. The arbitrator had ruled that the…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Arbitration Award Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
After successfully moving (Doc. 17) to correct an arbitration award, claimant C.W. Roberts Contracting, Inc., moves (Doc. 19) for pre-judgment interest, postjudgment interest, and an attorney's fee. Johnson Bros. Corporation responds. (Doc. 19.) The arbitrator ruled that “there is no prevailing party in this case” entitled to an attorney's fee and that “the Arbitrator will not make an award of prejudgment interest." (Doc. 1-5 at 6.) The claimant has identified no basis to disturb the arbitrator's ruling. See Cook v. XL Specialty Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224993 (S.D. Fla. 2024). Of course, the claimant is entitled to post-judgment interest at the applicable federal statutory rate from the date of the entry of the judgment. Reinhart v. Asset Managing Group, Inc., 2018 WL 6620592, at *3 (M.D. Fla. 2018); 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a).
The claimant's motion (Doc. 19) is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN- PART. The claimant is entitled to neither pre-judgment interest nor an attorney's fee. The claimant is entitled to post-judgment interest at the rate of 3.65% per annum. 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on November 25, 2025.
STEVEN D. MERRYDAY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
- 2 -
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
C.W. Roberts Contracting, Inc. v. Johnson Bros. Corp., 2018 WL 6620592 (M.D. Fla. 2025)…ialty Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224993 (S.D. Fla. 2024). Of course, the claimant is entitled to post-judgment interest at the applicable federal statutory rate from the date of the entry of the judgment. Reinhart v. Asset Managing Group, Inc., 2018 WL 6620592, at *3 (M.D. Fla. 2018); 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). The claimant’s motion (Doc. 19) is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN- PART. The claimant is entitled to neither pre-judgment interest nor an attorney’s fee. The claimant is entitled to post-judgment intere…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- C.W. Roberts Contracting, Inc. v. Johnson Bros. Corp., 2018 WL 6620592 (M.D. Fla. 2025)