Tru-Art Sign Co. v. Local 137 Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n
852 F.3d 217
2d Cir.2017Background
- Tru‑Art won a jury verdict against Local 137 for violations of NLRA § 8(b)(4); the district court entered judgment for $650,000 on Aug 27, 2013 with “no costs or fees” and Tru‑Art did not move under Rule 59(e).
- Local 137 appealed; this Court affirmed liability, vacated the damages as excessive, and remanded for a new damages trial or for the district court to offer remittitur to Tru‑Art.
- Tru‑Art accepted a remittitur to $440,000 on Oct 8, 2014; the district court entered a second judgment for $440,000 on Oct 29, 2014.
- On Oct 29, 2014 Tru‑Art moved for prejudgment interest, costs, and postjudgment interest for the first time; Local 137 opposed prejudgment interest and costs.
- The district court denied prejudgment interest and costs (and did not address postjudgment interest) on Sept 29, 2015; Tru‑Art appealed.
- The Second Circuit affirmed denial of prejudgment interest and costs (prejudgment interest untimely under Rule 59(e) and costs waived under E.D.N.Y. Local Civ. R. 54.1), vacated the denial as to postjudgment interest, and remanded to calculate and award postjudgment interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of prejudgment interest (Rule 59(e)) | Tru‑Art: may seek prejudgment interest after remand; timeliness should be measured from the second judgment. | Local 137: motion is untimely because Rule 59(e) window ran from the initial judgment. | Motion untimely: when initial and amended judgments exist, Rule 59(e) timeliness is measured from the earlier judgment unless the motion relates to the alteration that produced the amended judgment. |
| Merits of prejudgment interest award | Tru‑Art: discretionary award appropriate here. | Local 137: discretionary interest not warranted and may overcompensate. | District court did not abuse discretion in denying prejudgment interest; award would overcompensate. |
| Costs under Local Rule 54.1 | Tru‑Art: entitled to costs and filed for permission to move after remand. | Local 137: Tru‑Art failed to timely file the notice of taxation of costs and thus waived costs. | Costs waived: Tru‑Art failed to file notice within 30 days and showed no good cause for extension under E.D.N.Y. Local Civ. R. 54.1. |
| Postjudgment interest (28 U.S.C. §1961) | Tru‑Art: entitled to postjudgment interest; district court should have awarded it. | Local 137: did not dispute entitlement on appeal. | Postjudgment interest is mandatory; remand to district court to calculate and award it. |
Key Cases Cited
- Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169 (Rule 59(e) governs postjudgment motions for discretionary prejudgment interest)
- McNabola v. Chicago Transit Authority, 10 F.3d 501 (7th Cir.) (timeliness of Rule 59(e) motion measured from earlier judgment unless motion relates to alteration)
- Wickham Contracting Co. v. Local Union No. 3, Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 955 F.2d 831 (factors for awarding prejudgment interest in labor cases)
- Lewis v. Whelan, 99 F.3d 542 (postjudgment interest under § 1961 is mandatory)
- Carte Blanche (Singapore) Pte., Ltd. v. Carte Blanche Int’l, Ltd., 888 F.2d 260 (court lacks discretion to deny statutory postjudgment interest)