Van Asdale v. International Game Technology, 763 F.3d 1089

This is a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower case (Van Asdale) before the Ninth Circuit for the third time.
On first appeal, the court reversed a district court summary judgment; material facts were disputed.
On remand, a jury awarded the Van Asdales full relief on SOX claims and the district court entered judgment consistent with the verdict.
The district court denied post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law and granted fees, costs, and prejudgment interest under 29 C.F.R. § 20.58(a).
On the second appeal, the court affirmed denial of JMOL and left open the prejudgment interest rate issue as raised for the first time on appeal.
The Van Asdales sought fees and postjudgment interest (arguing for 26 U.S.C. § 6621); IGT urged the default rate under 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What is the postjudgment interest rate?	Van Asdale argues 26 U.S.C. § 6621 applies.	IGT argues 28 U.S.C. § 1961 governs postjudgment interest.	Postjudgment interest is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
Should prejudgment interest rate match postjudgment rate?	Van Asdale suggests rates should align with 26 U.S.C. § 6621 due to pretrial context.	IGT argues no need to have identical rates; district courts have discretion for prejudgment interest.	No requirement to harmonize prejudgment and postjudgment rates; rate issue not revisited on appeal.
Did the Secretary's interpretation deserve deference in setting the rate?	Van Asdale contends Secretary's view is persuasive and should control.	IGT disputes deference level; seeks alternative rate.	We defer to the Secretary’s view; § 1961 applies.
What is the available relief regarding fees on appeal?	Van Asdale seeks attorney’s fees on appeal.	IGT opposes or limits fee award pending further determination.	Fees on appeal granted; Appellate Commissioner to determine amount of fees and postjudgment interest.

Van Asdale v. Int’l Game Tech., 577 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2009) (initial reversal on summary judgment due to disputed facts)
Van Asdale v. Int’l Game Tech., 549 Fed. App’x 611 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirmed denial of JMOL; noted prejudgment rate issue)
Price v. Stevedoring Servs. of Am., Inc., 697 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2012) (§ 1961 rate supports making plaintiffs whole; deference to agency interpretation)
Ford v. Alfaro, 785 F.2d 835 (9th Cir. 1986) (§ 1961 mandatory for postjudgment interest in back pay cases)
Hall v. Bolger, 768 F.2d 1148 (9th Cir. 1985) (postjudgment interest for back pay under § 1961 appropriate)
Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (Supreme Court 1944) (persuasive deference standard for agency interpretations)