Diamond PEO v. Accurate Connections CA4/3

FACTS

Diamond sued Accurate for breaching a promissory note that required Diamond to repay $20,000 “with interest accruing on the unpaid balance at a rate of 3 percent (%) per annum . . . .” If Accurate “fail[ed] to pay the note in-full . . . , [the] unpaid principal [would] accrue interest at the maximum rate allowed by law, until [Accurate] [wa]s no longer in default.” Accurate made an offer to compromise the dispute pursuant to section 998 for $20,665. Diamond did not accept the offer. The parties ultimately resolved their dispute. Diamond drafted a proposed judgment, got Accurate to approve it as to form, and submitted it to the court. In its opening brief, Diamond calls this a “stipulated judgment.” It called for prejudgment “Interest at 3%”:

1 All undesignated statutory references are to this code.

2 (Above: Initial Proposed Judgment) The court did not sign Diamond’s initial proposed judgment. The court later signed an amended judgment proposed by Diamond, adding two alter-ego defendants after a contested hearing. The amended judgment contains the exact same table as the initial proposed judgment providing for “Interest at 3%.”

(Above: Amended Judgment) While Diamond’s…