Metzler v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles, Inc.
230 Ariz. 26
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Metzler sued BCI for injuries from a fall at a grocery store; jury found BCI liable; initial judgment was $1,855,398.86 on Sept. 2, 2009.
- Metzler rejected a Rule 68 offer of judgment for $150,000 on May 10, 2007; Rule 68 sanctions awarded prejudgment interest from the offer through the initial judgment.
- On Dec. 8, 2009, the trial court granted a new trial on liability but denied one on damages; the court vacated the Sept. 2, 2009 judgment.
- This court reversed the grant of a new trial on liability, affirmed denial on damages, and remanded for final judgment.
- In Apr. 2011, BCI paid damages and sanctions; BCI sought judgment on mandate; the trial court held prejudgment interest terminated Sept. 2, 2009; Metzler appealed.
- This appeal concerns what constitutes the correct end date for Rule 68 prejudgment interest after a vacated judgment and a subsequent mandate judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the proper end date for Rule 68 prejudgment interest? | Metzler: interest runs to mandate judgment date. | BCI: interest ends when initial judgment is entered. | The end date is the mandate judgment; initial judgment vacated, thus not the controlling judgment. |
| Is the Sept. 2, 2009 judgment the relevant judgment for Rule 68(g)? | Sept. 2 judgment fixed rights unless vacated. | It remained the judgment despite a later action. | The Sept. 2 judgment was vacated and not the relevant judgment. |
| How should 'judgment' be interpreted under Rule 68(g) after appeal or new trial? | Judgment occurs at the final resolution after appeal/new trial. | Judgment may mean the immediate post-trial judgment. | Judgment on mandate is the applicable later judgment for sanctions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berry v. 352 E. Va., L.L.C., 228 Ariz. 9 (Ariz. 2011) (interpretation of judgment and Rule 68 in context of sanctions)
- Nielson v. Patterson, 204 Ariz. 530 (Ariz. 2003) (vacated judgment lacks force; affects sanction accrual)
- Warner v. Sw. Desert Images, LLC, 218 Ariz. 121 (Ariz. 2008) (purpose of Rule 68 to avoid protracted litigation; sanctions policy)
- Drozda v. McComas, 181 Ariz. 82 (Ariz. App. 1994) (amendments and retroactivity in Rule 68 contexts)
- McEvoy v. Aerotek, Inc., 201 Ariz. 300 (Ariz. App. 2001) (construction of court rules in light of purpose)
- Conant v. Whitney, 190 Ariz. 290 (Ariz. 1997) (preservation of appeal rights; distinguishes pendency of new trial)