Howard v. J&B Hauling, LLC
2:22-cv-00993
E.D. La.
Nov 22, 2024
Check Treatment
Docket
Opinion Summary

Facts

  1. Shaun E. Howard filed a lawsuit against J&B Hauling, LLC and Reginald Mitchell arising from a motor vehicle collision in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana [lines="9-10"].
  2. A jury rendered a verdict on October 23, 2024, in favor of Howard and against the Defendants [lines="11-12"].
  3. Howard sought taxation of costs and pre-judgment interest from the Court following the jury’s verdict [lines="14-15"].
  4. Defendants acknowledged Howard's entitlement to pre-judgment interest but disputed the applicable calculation method [lines="30-33"].
  5. The trial court found that Howard is entitled to both pre-judgment interest and court costs, addressing the motions accordingly [lines="21-24"].

Issues

  1. What is the appropriate calculation method for pre-judgment interest in a federal court diversity case? [lines="30-33"]
  2. Is the prevailing party entitled to recover court costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1)? [lines="56-57"]

Holdings

  1. The Court concluded that pre-judgment interest should be calculated under Louisiana law from the date of judicial demand [lines="43-44"].
  2. The Court held that Howard, as the prevailing party, is entitled to an award of costs, with the amount to be assessed by the Clerk of Court [lines="60-61"].

OPINION

SHAUN E. HOWARD v. J&B HAULING, LLC, ET AL.

NO. 22-993

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

November 22, 2024

NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN, CHIEF JUDGE

SECTION: “G”(5)

ORDER AND REASONS

This litigation arises from a motor vehicle collision in St. Tammany Parish, State of Louisiana.1 On October 23, 2024, a jury found in favor of Plaintiff Shaun E. Howard (“Plaintiff”) and against Defendants J&B Hauling, LLC and Reginald Mitchell (collectively, “Defendants”), and the Court entered judgment on the verdict.2 Before the Court are Plaintiff‘s Motion for Taxation of Costs3 and Motion for Pre-Judgment Interest.4 Defendants oppose the motions in part.5 For the reasons explained below, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to pre-judgment interest from the date of judicial demand at the rate fixed by Louisiana law, post-judgment interest, and court costs. Therefore, considering the motions, the memoranda in support and in opposition, the record, and the applicable law, the Court grants the motions.6 The Court will issue an amended

judgment specifying that Plaintiff is entitled to interest and costs.

Plaintiff moves the Court to award Plaintiff interest and costs.7 Plaintiff asserts he is entitled to pre-judgment interest from the date of commencement of this action, April 13, 2022, at the rate specified 28 U.S.C. § 1961.8 Therefore, Plaintiff requests that the judgment be amended to clarify an award of pre-judgment interest.9 Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiff is entitled to pre-judgment interest.10 However, Defendants point out that 28 U.S.C. § 1961 addresses post-judgment interest, and pre-judgment interest should be calculated under Louisiana law.11

When a federal court sits in diversity, it applies the state law governing the award of pre-judgment interest.12 In Louisiana, the state law presumes that interest will be awarded on judgments, and in tort actions, “[l]egal interest shall attach from date of judicial demand.”13 Pre-judgment interest need not be specifically mentioned in the judgment, but it is appropriate to amend the judgment to include pre-judgment interest for clarity.14 Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to pre-judgment interest from the date of judicial demand, April 13, 2022, through the date of Judgment, October 23, 2024, at the rate fixed by Louisiana law.

Even in diversity cases, federal law governs post-judgment interest.15 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a) entitles “judgment creditors to post-judgment interest.” Post-judgment interest need not be specifically mentioned in the judgment, as it “is awarded as a matter of course.”16 Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to post-judgment interest from October 24, 2024 until the judgment is paid.

Plaintiff also requests that costs be awarded to him pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) because he is the prevailing party.17 Plaintiff has filed a Bill of Costs that is currently pending before the Clerk of Court pursuant to Local Rule 54.3.1.18 Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiff is entitled to costs, but they object to the amount of costs requested by Plaintiff.19 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) entitles the prevailing party to an award of costs. Pursuant to Local Rule 54.3.1, costs are assessed by the Clerk of Court. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of costs, and the amount will be assessed by the Clerk of Court.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c) provides that “[e]very . . . final judgment should grant the relief to which each party is entitled, even if the party has not demanded that relief in its pleadings.” Therefore, the Court will exercise its “considerable discretion” and amend the judgment to clarify an award for pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and costs to prevent a “manifest injustice.”20

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Shaun E. Howard‘s Motion for Taxation of Costs21 and Motion for Pre-Judgment Interest22 are GRANTED.23 An amended judgment will issue to clarify that Plaintiff is entitled to pre-judgment interest from April 13, 2022 to October 23, 2024 at the rate fixed by Louisiana law, post-judgment interest from October 24, 2024 until the judgment is paid, and costs. The amount of costs will be assessed by the Clerk of Court pursuant to Local Rule 54.3.1.

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, this 22nd day of November, 2024.

NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN

CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Notes

1
Rec. Doc. 1 at 2-3.
2
Rec. Docs. 145, 146. The Court entered a directed verdict in favor of Defendant KSJ Enterprises USA, LLC. Rec. Doc. 143.
3
Rec. Doc. 150.
4
Rec. Doc. 151.
5
Rec. Docs. 152, 153.
6
The Court does not reach the dispute regarding the amount of costs due. This issue will be addressed by the Clerk of Court.
7
Rec. Docs. 151, 152.
8
Rec. Doc. 151-1.
9
Id.
10
Rec. Doc. 152.
11
Id.
17
Rec. Doc. 150-1.
18
Rec. Doc. 149.
19
Rec. Doc. 152.
21
Rec. Doc. 150.
22
Rec. Doc. 151.
23
The Court does not reach the dispute regarding the amount of costs due. This issue will be addressed by the Clerk of Court.
Read the detailed case summary