Hill v. Majestic Blue Fisheries, LLC
692 F. App'x 871
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Amy Hill sued Majestic Blue Fisheries under the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA) after her husband, Captain David Hill, died; a jury awarded damages to Hill.
- The district court entered an amended judgment in Hill’s favor and awarded prejudgment interest and denied a pro tanto settlement credit sought by Majestic.
- Majestic appealed the district court’s award of prejudgment interest (including the rate and application to future damages) and the denial of a settlement credit.
- The jury had allocated 100% fault to Majestic and Majestic did not request the jury to allocate fault to another party, Dongwon.
- The district court applied a 6% prejudgment interest rate and the court — not the jury — determined prejudgment interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prejudgment interest may be awarded by the court in a DOHSA case after a jury verdict | Hill: Court may award prejudgment interest under federal law/procedure | Majestic: (implicit) prejudgment interest should be governed by jury allocation principles from maritime cases | Court: No error — federal law permits the court to decide prejudgment interest even after a jury trial in DOHSA case; Glynn not extended to DOHSA |
| Whether the district court abused discretion in using a 6% prejudgment interest rate | Hill: Local rate is appropriate where equities support it | Majestic: 6% rate inappropriate (argues for different rate) | Court: No abuse — district court may adopt local rate when equitable to do so |
| Whether prejudgment interest on future damages was improperly awarded | Hill: (implicitly) court’s award stands | Majestic: Prejudgment interest should not apply to future damages | Court: Issue waived because Majestic raised it first in reply brief; court declines to reach it |
| Whether Majestic was entitled to a pro tanto settlement credit for a settlement by another party | Hill: No; liability should follow jury allocation | Majestic: Entitled to credit for settlement amount | Court: Denial proper — under McDermott non-settling defendant’s liability is set by jury’s allocation; Majestic fully liable because jury allocated 100% fault to it |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Slatkin, 525 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2008) (court decides prejudgment interest after jury trial under federal law)
- Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169 (U.S. 1989) (court, not jury, decides prejudgment interest under federal law)
- Glynn v. Roy Al Boat Mgmt. Corp., 57 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995) (where maritime claim tried before jury, prejudgment interest amount submitted to jury)
- Snyder v. Whittaker Corp., 839 F.2d 1085 (5th Cir. 1988) (affirming district court’s award of prejudgment interest in DOHSA case where jury awarded damages)
- Columbia Brick Works, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Am., 768 F.2d 1066 (9th Cir. 1985) (district court may adopt local interest rate where equities support it)
- United States v. Kama, 394 F.3d 1236 (9th Cir. 2005) (issues not raised in opening brief are generally waived)
- McDermott, Inc. v. AmClyde, 511 U.S. 202 (U.S. 1994) (non-settling defendant’s liability should be calculated with reference to jury’s allocation, not by giving dollar-for-dollar settlement credit)
- Atl. Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (U.S. 2009) (abrogation on other grounds referenced in context of maritime damages)