Howard v. J&B Hauling, LLC
2:22-cv-00993
E.D. La.Nov 22, 2024Background
- This case arises from a motor vehicle accident in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana.
- Plaintiff Shaun E. Howard prevailed at trial against J&B Hauling, LLC and Reginald Mitchell; judgment was entered based on a jury verdict.
- Plaintiff moved for taxation of costs and an award of pre-judgment interest following the favorable verdict and judgment.
- Defendants did not dispute Howard’s entitlement to interest or costs, but raised objections as to the calculation method and the amount of costs sought.
- The applicability of federal versus Louisiana law for pre- and post-judgment interest, and the proper procedures for assessment of court costs, were before the court on the motions.
- The court considered the parties’ memoranda, relevant federal rules, and state law, and granted Howard’s motions, clarifying the judgment to include interest and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pre-judgment interest applies | Howard argues for pre-judgment interest from suit's commencement under federal law | Defendants agree interest applies but say Louisiana law governs rate/calculation | Pre-judgment interest granted per Louisiana law |
| Calculation of post-judgment interest | Not specifically opposed by Howard | No dispute; acknowledges federal law governs | Post-judgment interest awarded automatically |
| Entitlement to costs | Howard, as prevailing party, seeks costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) | Defendants agree costs are due, dispute only the amount | Costs awarded; amount to be set by Clerk |
| Amendment of judgment to clarify relief | Judgment should specify all relief due, including interest/costs | No opposition | Judgment amended to include all relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Vacuum Tanks, Inc., 75 F.3d 1048 (5th Cir. 1996) (federal courts sitting in diversity apply state law for pre-judgment interest)
- Harris v. Mickel, 15 F.3d 428 (5th Cir. 1994) (clarifies distinction between federal and state law application for interest)
- Meaux Surface Prot., Inc. v. Fogleman, 607 F.3d 161 (5th Cir. 2010) (post-judgment interest governed by federal law)
- Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350 (5th Cir. 1993) (discretion of district court to grant relief not affirmatively requested to prevent injustice)