Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 20STCV49852, Date: 2025-04-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV49852 Hearing Date: April 28, 2025 Dept: 61
ELIAS SAIKALI, et al. vs SAMUEL WASSIF, et al.
Tentative:
Plaintiffs Elias Saikali and Rania Saikali’s Motion to Amend Judgment is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs are awarded prejudgment interest in the amount of $364,836.35.
Plaintiffs to provide notice.
Analysis:
I. MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs Elias Saikali and Rania Saikali (Plaintiffs) seek to amend the judgment entered in their favor on February 2, 2024, which contained special provision for amendment to include prejudgment interest from December 30, 2020.
“A person who is entitled to recover damages certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation, and the right to recover which is vested in the person upon a particular day, is entitled also to recover interest thereon from that day, except when the debtor is prevented by law, or by the act of the creditor from paying the debt.” (Civ. Code § 3287, subd. (a).) Damages are deemed certain or capable of being made certain within the provisions of subdivision (a) of section 3287 where there is essentially no dispute between the parties concerning the basis of computation of damages if any are recoverable but where their dispute centers on the issue of liability giving rise to damage.’ (Duale v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 718, 729.)
This court awarded $1,179,500.00 in principal damages, plus $500,000.00 in punitive damages, for a total judgment of $1,679,500.00 in Plaintiffs’ favor. Plaintiffs seeks prejudgment interest at 10% per annum, as permitted for contract claims under Civil Code § 3289, subd. (b). (Motion at p. 3.) The date from which interest accrues is December 30, 2020, as provided in the judgment. Plaintiffs apply this time-frame and percentage to the total damages award to seek prejudgment interest in the amount of $519,498.06. (Motion at p. 3.)
Plaintiffs overcalculate the interest because they include the $500,000 punitive damages award in their interest calculations. That amount of damages was not certain or capable of being made certain prior to the entry of judgment, and the judgment expressly provided for prejudgment interest only on the $1,179,500.00 in principal damages. Ten percent of this amount is $117,950, or $323.15 per diem. Given the 1,129 days between December 30, 2020, and the date of the amended judgment entered on February 2, 2024, the amount of prejudgment interest is $364,836.35.
Plaintiffs also seek postjudgment interest. (Motion at pp. 3–4.) But they acknowledge that it has not “ever been necessary for the judgment to contain a direction for payment of [postjudgment] interest; the obligation follows automatically”. (Pinecrest Productions, Inc. v. RKO Teleradio Pictures, Inc. (1970) 14 Cal.App.3d 6, 11; Code Civ. Proc. § 685.020, subd. (a).) Thus no amendment of the judgment is necessary to include postjudgment interest.
The motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs are awarded prejudgment interest in the amount of $364,836.35.