Cappiello v. ICD Publications, Inc.
720 F.3d 109
2d Cir.2013Background
- Cappiello obtained a federal judgment against ICD for $600,510.15 ( Aug. 20, 2010 ), including $67,923.09 pre-judgment interest.
- The judgment was affirmed by this Court ( Jan. 23, 2012 ); ICD tendered payment Feb. 28, 2012 calculating post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 (.25%).
- Cappiello argued New York CPLR post-judgment interest (9%) should apply; the district court amended the judgment to apply § 1961 instead.
- Cappiello registered the judgment in New York state court and pursued collection, while ICD sought relief via Rule 60(b)(5) and stayed enforcement.
- The district court held § 1961 governs post-judgment interest for federal judgments, including diversity judgments docketed in state court; the court clarified the amount to satisfy the federal judgment.
- The Second Circuit affirms, holding § 1961 is constitutional and applicable to diversity judgments, and Erie does not preclude its use.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §1961 apply to post-judgment interest in a diversity judgment docketed in state court? | Cappiello argues NY rate should apply. | ICD argues §1961 governs. | Yes; §1961 applies. |
| Is applying §1961 to diversity judgments constitutional, considering Erie? | Applying federal rate violates Erie principles. | §1961 valid; federal rule governs. | Constitutional; Erie does not invalidate §1961 here. |
| Did the district court correctly apply the §1961 rate (.25%) to satisfy the federal judgment? | State rate (9%) should control. | Federal §1961 rate controls. | District court correctly applied §1961 rate. |
Key Cases Cited
- FCS Advisors, Inc. v. Fair Fin. Co., 605 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2010) (affirms §1961 applicability in diversity and uniform rate rationale)
- D’Urso v. Westinghouse Credit Corp., 371 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2004) (post-judgment interest rationale in federal judgments)
- Schipani v. McLeod, 541 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2008) (discusses post-judgment interest in various contexts)
- Burlington Northern R.R. Co. v. Woods, 480 U.S. 1 (1987) (rulemaking authority and application of federal rules)
- Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965) (rules of decision act and federal-rule applicability)
- Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 130 S. Ct. 1431 (2010) (federal rules governing procedures and Erie considerations)
- Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) (establishes enterprise of applying state law in diversity actions)