MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This mаtter is before the Court on the Motion of Plaintiff General Mills Operations, LLC (“General Mills”) for entry of Judgment against Defendant Five Star Custom Foods, Ltd. (“Five Star”). For the reasons that follow, the Motion will be granted.
Following summary judgment, the parties participated in a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Graham. The conference proved largely successful; the parties stipulated to the damages General Mills had incurred as a result of the breach ($1,473,564), as well as the reasonable amount of attorneys’ fees it had incurred up to that point ($150,000). However, they could not agree on the amount of рrejudgment interest to which General Mills was entitled, and they agreed to submit that issue to the Court for resolution.
The parties have now submitted memoranda on this issue. Notably, it is undisputed that General Mills may recover prejudgment interest from Five Star under Minnesota Statutes § 549.09. (See Mem. in Opp’n at 1 (“Five Star ... does not dispute that an award of prejudgment interest pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 549.09 is appropriate in this case.”).)
Accrual. Under Section 549.09, a judgment creditor is entitled to prejudgment interest “from the time of the commencement of the action ... or the time of a written notice of claim, whichever occurs first.” Minn.Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(b). General Mills argues that it provided a “written notice of claim” to Five Star by letter dated May 27, 2008. (Gilbertson Aff. Ex. 2.) That letter advised Five Star that General Mills had “experienced significant expenses in connection with [Five Star’s] contaminated beef products” and, as of the letter’s date, “estimate[d] the following damages resulting from Five Star’s contаminated product.” (Id.) The letter then listed several categories of expenses allegedly incurred by General Mills due to the recall, including “payments to customers for contaminated product,” “cost to destroy inventory on hand,” and “customer charges/reimbursed expenses,” which totaled $1,400,000. While the letter noted that certain costs might not be fully included in the $1.4 million and could “continue to accrue,” General Mills maintained that it was “willing to accept ... prompt payment of $1,400,000 ... in full settlement of this issue.” (Id.)
Five Star argues that this letter did not trigger the аccrual of prejudgment interest under Section 549.09. It argues that a “written notice of claim ... is insufficient to start the clock on prejudgment interest unless it is specific enough to permit the
Although the phrase “written notice of claim” is not defined in Section 549.09, it is both clear and unambiguous. “Claim” means “[t]o demand as one’s own or as one’s right; to assert; to urge; to insist.” Black’s Law Dictionary 247 (6th ed. 1990); accord, e.g., The Ameriсan Heritage Dictionary 277 (2d coll. ed. 1985) (defining “claim” as “[t]o demand or ask for as one’s own or one’s due; assert one’s right to”). The phrase “written notice of claim,” therefore, simply means a demand for payment (or other similar assertion) contained in a writing. Accordingly, “Minnesota courts have frequently described the required notice under Minn. Stat. § 549.09 as a demand for payment.” Flint Hills Res. LP v. Lovegreen Turbine Servs., Inc., Civ. No. 04-4699,
Here, General Mills’ May 27, 2008 letter, fairly construed, was a demand for payment. It provided Five Star with a rough calculation (by category) of General Mills’ damages and, despite the fact that those damages could potentially increase, indicated that General Mills was “willing to accept ... prompt payment of $1,400,000” in “full settlement of this issue.” General Mills further reserved the right to seek additional damages in the event the parties were “unable to promptly resolve” the dispute. Because the letter sufficiently advised Five Star of the nature of General Mills’ damages, see Indep. Sch. Dist. 441 v. Bunn-O-Matic Corp., No. C0-96-594,
Five Star contends, however, that Minnesota courts have “decline[d] to award prejudgment interest on claims for unliquidated damages where the liable party cannot determine his liability in advance.” (Def. Mem. at 4-5.) Yet, Section 549.09 does not require that damages be calculable at the time a written demand is made. See, e.g., Schwickert, Inc. v. Winnebago Seniors, Ltd.,
To be sure, some Minnesota decisions have continued to apply the pre-1984 “ascertainability” rule. See, e.g., T.B.T.G. Found, v. Pendleton, No. C7-00-615,
For these reasons, the May 2008 letter was a sufficient “written notice of сlaim” under Section 549.09, regardless of the ascertainability of 'Five Star’s damages. Pre-judgment interest, therefore, is award-able from the date of the letter. See Bunnr-O-Matic,
Interest rate. Prior to August 1, 2009, Section 549.09 provided that prejudgment interest should be calculated “as simple interest per annum' ... based on the secondary market yield of one year United States treasury bills.” Minn.Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1(c) (2008). However, the statute was amended in 2009 to provide a rate of 10% per year for all judgments in excess of $50,000. See 2009 Minn. Sess. Law Serv. ch. 83, art. 2, § 35 (West). The amendment also provided: “EFFECTIVE DATE: This, section is effective August 1, 2009, and applies to judgments and awards ■ finаlly entered on or after that date.” Id. (emphasis added). According to Five Star, this amendment was not “meant to be applied retroactively,” and hence “a trial court properly calculates interest on a judgment in excess of $50,000 at the U.S. Treasury rate for thе time period prior to August 1, 2009, and at the 10% rate beginning on August 1, 2009.” (Def. Mem. at 7.) In support, it cites Stafne Construction & Aggregate, LLC v. Bambenek, No. A10-873,
In this Court’s view, however, parsing prejudgment interest in this way would turn the text of Section 549.09 on its head. The 2009 amendment to the statute was expressly made applicable to all “judgments and awards finally entered on or after” August 1, 2009. Five Star’s argument about retroactivity, therefore, is
In reaching this conclusion, the Court is not ignoring Stafne; it recognizes that the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed an award of prejudgment interest in that case using different interest rates for the period prior to August 1, 2009, and the period after that date. In this Court’s view, Stafne was wrongly decided. But regardless of the undersigned’s opinions on the merits of Stafhe, at least two recent decisions of the Minnesota Court of Appeals calculated prejudgment interest without using different rates for the period before August 1, 2009, and the period after that date. See Marks v. Erotas Bldg. Corp., No. A11-514,
In this Court’s view, if faced with the issue the Minnesota Supreme Court would apply Section 549.09 as written and award prejudgment interest at one rate only— 10% — for any judgment over $50,000 entered after August 1, 2009. The statute’s text is abundantly clear; had the Minnesota legislature intended for different prejudgment interest rates to apply to damages incurred before and after August 1, 2009, it could have easily said so. This Court will nоt ignore what it believes was the Minnesota legislature’s clear mandate. See Conn. Nat’l Bank v. Germain,
Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that General Mills is entitled to prejudgment interest from May 27, 2008, to the date of the entry of judgment in this case, at a rate of 10%. The Court has reviewed Generаl Mills’ calculations and agrees that the appropriate amount of such interest is $552,283.70, assuming judgment enters on February 24. Prejudgment interest, therefore, will be awarded in that amount.
Fees. Finally, the Court pauses to address General Mills’ request for attorneys’ fees incurred bringing the instant Motion. Five Star appears to acknowledge that General Mills is entitled to such fees (see Mem. in Opp’n at 9-10), but it argues that the request (seeking $15,424.50) is excessive and should be reduced to no more than $3,000. The Court disagrees. Having reviewed the hourly rates sought by counsel and the number of hours expended, the Court finds neither to be excessive, unwarranted, or unreasonable. Accordingly, General Mills may recover all of the fees it seeks.
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS ORDERED that General Mills’ Motion for Entry of Judgment and Award of Prejudgment Interest and Additional Attorney’s Fees (Doc. No. 114) is GRANTED. General Mills is entitled to recover $2,191,272.20, comprising stipulated damages of $1,473,564, prejudgment interest of $552,283.70, stipulated attorneys’ fees of $150,000, and additional attorneys’ fees of $15,424.50. Judgment shall be entered in favor of General Mills Operations, LLC and against Five Star Custom Foods, Ltd. in the amount of $2,191,272.20.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Notes
. In a diversity action such as this one, state law controls the award of prejudgment interest. E.g., Childrens Broad. Corp. v. Walt Disney Co.,
. Notably, the amount demanded by General Mills in the May 2008 letter ($1.4 million) is extremely close to the amount of damages to which Five Star ultimately stipulated after several years of litigation ($1,473,564). This belies Five Star's claim that its damages were nоt ascertainable and that General Mills’ demand was simply an unspecific ''estimate.”
. This Court typically pays deference to decisions of the Minnesota Court of Appeals with respect to questions of Minnesota law not yet decided by the Minnesota Supreme Court. E. g., Lancaster v. Am. & Foreign Ins. Co.,