White v. Wycoff, 862 F.3d 1065

Plaintiff Philip White won a jury verdict awarding $100,000 in compensatory damages and sought prejudgment interest; the district court denied prejudgment interest, viewing most of the award as noneconomic.
White argued on appeal for a bright-line rule that prejudgment interest is always available in § 1983 cases or, alternatively, that the district court abused its discretion by denying interest on the full award or at least on his claimed economic damages ($3,974.25).
The Tenth Circuit panel declined to overrule circuit precedent that prejudgment interest is not recoverable as a matter of right in § 1983 cases and instead applied abuse-of-discretion review to the denial.
The district court had concluded prejudgment interest would not be necessary to compensate White (because damages were largely noneconomic) and that the equities did not favor awarding interest.
The district court also declined to parse the jury’s award between economic and noneconomic components; the Tenth Circuit found that refusal reasonable rather than speculative.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prejudgment interest is a mandatory entitlement in § 1983 cases	White: prejudgment interest should be a bright-line right for compensatory awards	Defendants: circuit precedent holds it is discretionary	Held: Not mandatory; circuit precedent controls (prejudgment interest not recoverable as a matter of right)
Whether federal law requires incorporation of Colorado prejudgment-interest rule under § 1988	White: § 1988 incorporates Colorado law mandating interest	Defendants: § 1988 applies only if federal law is deficient; argument waived and inconsistent with precedent	Held: Waived and invalid; § 1988 does not compel overriding circuit precedent
Whether denial of prejudgment interest on noneconomic damages was an abuse of discretion	White: court failed to determine if interest would be compensatory and ignored factors favoring interest	Defendants: court reasonably found interest unnecessary for noneconomic damages and weighed equities	Held: No abuse; court reasonably found interest unnecessary for noneconomic damages and acted within discretion
Whether prejudgment interest should have been awarded on identified economic damages ($3,974.25)	White: at least award interest on proved economic loss	Defendants: court rightly refused to speculate how jury allocated award between economic and noneconomic	Held: No abuse; court reasonably declined to attribute a specific portion of verdict to economic damages

Zuchel v. City & County of Denver, 997 F.2d 730 (10th Cir. 1993) (prejudgment interest is not recoverable as a matter of right and two-step test: compensatory function then equities)
Thompson v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 582 F.3d 1125 (10th Cir. 2009) (panels cannot overrule published circuit precedent)
Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584 (U.S. 1978) (§ 1988 supplies state law only when federal law is deficient)
Furtado v. Bishop, 604 F.2d 80 (1st Cir. 1979) (§ 1983’s omission of prejudgment interest does not render federal law "deficient")
Barnard v. Theobald, 721 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2013) (noneconomic damages delay may justify prejudgment interest — relied on by plaintiff)
U.S. Indus., Inc. v. Touche Ross & Co., 854 F.2d 1223 (10th Cir. 1988) (cited for interplay of compensatory purpose and equitable considerations)
Wilson v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 803 F.2d 563 (10th Cir. 1986) (discussion of how juries assess noneconomic damages)
Malloy v. Monahan, 73 F.3d 1012 (10th Cir. 1996) (district court may deny prejudgment interest based on equities even if compensatory)
Towerridge, Inc. v. T.A.O., Inc., 111 F.3d 758 (10th Cir. 1997) (abuse-of-discretion standard for equitable determinations)