LANDI
v.
HOME DEPOT USA, INC.

M.D. Fla. | 2020-07-22
No. 2:17-cv-701
District Court, M.D. Florida (2020)

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.

Holding

The court denied defendants' motion for entry of a modified final judgment because federal law, not state law, governs post-judgment interest accrual, and interest on attorneys' fees does not accrue from the original judgment date.

Facts & Procedural History

A jury returned a verdict for defendants in a personal injury case. The clerk entered judgment, and the court awarded attorneys' fees and costs. Defen…

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.

Topics
28 U.S.C. § 1961 Fla. Stat. § 768.79 28 U.S.C. § 1920 Post-Judgment Interest

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 28 U.S.C. § 1961 cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

HOME DEPOT USA, INC. and MAKITA USA, INC.,

Defendants. /

OPINION AND ORDER1

Before the Court is Defendants Makita USA, Inc. and Home Depot USA, Inc.’s Motion for Entry of Final Judgment (Doc. 202), requesting entry of a judgment they prepared. Defendants’ proposed judgment differs from the Amended Judgment previously entered by the Clerk in two notable ways. First, it provides for accrual of interest on both attorneys’ fees and costs from entry of the original judgment. The current judgment only addresses interest accrued on the taxed costs. Second, the proposed judgment reserves jurisdiction to enter further orders. This personal injury case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict for Defendants on January 13, 2020. The Clerk entered judgment the next day. Defendants then moved for attorneys’ fees under Fla. Stat. § 768.79 and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. The Court awarded attorneys’ fees and allowed taxation of some costs. (Doc.

Under federal law, interest accrues on costs from the date of the original judgment, BankAtlantic v. Blythe Eastman Paine Webber, Inc., 12 F. 3d 1045, 1052 (11th Cir. 1994), but attorneys’ fees generally accrue interest from the date the Court awards them, Mock v. Bell Helicopter Texton, Inc., Case No. 6:04-cv-1415-Orl-28DAB, 2010 WL 11591816 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 18, 2010).2 And since post-judgment interest automatically accrues under 28 U.S.C. § 1961, the Court and the judgment need not mention it. Nat. Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Fortune Const. Co., 233 F. App’x 890, 895 (11th Cir. 2007) (“That the judgment of the district court did not address postjudgment interest is of no consequence.”). The judgment likewise need not explicitly retain jurisdiction. Federal district courts

have ancillary jurisdiction over supplementary proceedings (like attachment and garnishment) to effectuate its judgments. Nat. Mar. Servs., Inc. v. Straub, 776 F. 3d 783, 786 (11th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: Defendants Makita USA, Inc. and Home Depot USA, Inc.’s Motion for Entry of Final Judgment (Doc. 202) is DENIED.

,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record

Footnotes
1 Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink’s availability and functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order. 199). And it ordered that interest accrue on the costs—but not attorneys’ fees—from January 14, 2020. Defendants argue interest should have accrued on the entire judgment under Fla. Stat. § 55.03(2). But federal courts apply 28 U.S.C. § 1961 when awarding post-judgment interest. G.M. Brod & Co., Inc. v. U.S. Home Corp., 759 F. 2d 1526, 1542 (11th Cir. 1985).
2 There is an exception. Some circuits allow accrual of interest on attorneys’ fee from the original judgment if the prevailing party is unconditionally entitled to such fees by statutory right. Mock, 2010 WL 11591816, at *3. But that is not the case here. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 22nd day of July, 2020.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw