Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 20STCV22351, Date: 2024-02-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV22351    Hearing Date: February 26, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

On July 14, 2020, Margarita Z. Ramirez (“Plaintiff”) filed her First Amended Complaint against her employer World Oil Corp. and Asbury Environmental Services (collectively “Defendant”), alleging the following causes of action: (1) Failure to engage in the interactive process; (2) Intrusion into private affairs; (3) Failure to provide a reasonable accommodation; (4) Violation of CFRA rights; (5) Employment discrimination; (6) Failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation; and (7) Wrongful constructive discharge.

The matter came on for trial in April 2022, after which the jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff. The jury awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages ($1.5 million for each Defendant). The Court entered judgment accordingly on May 9, 2022. The Court issued an amended judgment on August 26, 2022 after additional awards of costs and attorneys’ fees. The amended judgment awarded $4.1 million against Defendants jointly and severally, along with $1.5 million against each Defendant.    

On December 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for prejudgment interest under Civil Code sections 3288 and 3291. Defendants have not filed an opposition. 

DISCUSSION

            Civil Code section 3288 allows for prejudgment interest “[i]n an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, and in every case of oppression, fraud, or malice.” (Civ. Code, § 3288.) Section 3291 allows for prejudgment interest in personal injury cases where the plaintiff makes a Section 998 offer that is not accepted, and the plaintiff obtains a more favorable result at trial. (Id., § 3291.)

A request for prejudgment interest “must be made by way of motion prior to entry of judgment, or the request must be made in the form of a motion for new trial no later than the time allowed for filing such a motion.” (North Oakland Medical Clinic v. Rogers (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 824, 831.) A motion for new trial must be made within 15 days of service of the entry of judgment or within 180 days after entry of judgment, whichever is earlier. (Code Civ. Proc., § 659(a)(2).) This rule was followed in Watson Bowman Acme Corp. v. RGW Construction, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 279, 298, where the plaintiff’s request for prejudgment interest was made less than 15 days after judgment, rendering it timely under Section 659.

Here, Plaintiff filed her motion more than one year after the amended judgment of August 26, 2022. Therefore, the motion is untimely.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion for prejudgment interest is DENIED.