1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CATLIN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Case No. 20-cv-01345-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

AMEND JUDGMENT

9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 43 10 DANKO MEREDITH, 11 Defendant.

12 13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Catlin Insurance Company, Inc’s motion to amend the 14 judgment to include both pre- and post-judgment interest. Dkt. No. 43. The Court finds this 15 matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. See 16 Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons detailed below, the Court DENIES the motion. 17 The parties are familiar with the facts of this case. Catlin filed this action to recover a 18 duplicative settlement payment that it made in connection with an underlying lawsuit in California 19 state court. See Dkt. No. 14 (“FAC”). Following a plane crash in July 2012, Defendant Danko 20 Meredith represented the heirs of one of the decedents, Michael Boolen, in a wrongful death 21 action. See Dkt. No. 36-1 (“Danko Decl.”) at ¶ 2; see also id. at Ex. A. Catlin wired the 22 settlement payment in the amount of $180,000 to Danko Meredith’s client trust account. See Dkt. 23 No. 35-2, Ex. B. Two days later, Catlin sent Danko Meredith a check, also in the amount of 24 $180,000. See id., Ex. D. The check was sent in error. See id. at ¶ 9. Danko Meredith 25 acknowledged that it received the duplicative payment. See Dkt. No. 36 at 1. However, it refused 26 to return the funds and argued that Catlin somehow waived its right to return of the payment. See, 27 e.g., Dkt. No. 36 at 8–15. In resolving Catlin’s motion for summary judgment, the Court rejected 1 During the hearing on the motion, the Court specifically asked counsel whether Catlin was 2 seeking any relief beyond the return of the $180,000 duplicative payment. The Court noted, for 3 example, that in addition to the return of the $180,000 duplicative payment, the complaint also 4 requested “compensatory damages, plus interest,” attorneys’ fees, and costs. See FAC at 7 5 (“Prayer for Relief”). Catlin had not referenced interest, fees, or costs in its motion or at the 6 hearing. See Dkt. No. 35. The Court explained that it wanted to understand the full extent of the 7 recovery Catlin was seeking and whether any further briefing would be necessary to resolve this 8 case. Both parties confirmed that nothing more was required after entry of the order on the motion 9 for summary judgment. And Counsel for Catlin confirmed that it was not seeking additional 10 damages in this case. Cf. Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 175–76 (1989) (noting 11 that prejudgment interest is considered part of a party’s compensatory damages). Relying on 12 Catlin’s representations, the Court entered judgment in favor of Catlin in the total amount of 13 $180,000. See Dkt. No. 40 at 12 (“During the hearing on the motion Plaintiff clarified that it is 14 only seeking the return of the $180,000 and waives any other request for attorneys’ fees or further 15 damages.”). 16 Neither in its briefing nor during the hearing did Catlin assert that it was seeking pre- or 17 post-judgment interest in addition to restoration of the duplicative settlement payment. 18 Nevertheless, Catlin now argues for the first time that in addition to return of the duplicative 19 payment, it also seeks prejudgment and post-judgment interest. See generally Dkt. No. 43. 20 Catlin brings its motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Dkt. No. 43 at 1; 21 see also McCalla v. Royal MacCabees Life Ins. Co., 369 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding 22 that motion to include mandatory prejudgment interest, filed over a year after judgment entered, 23 was not a correction of a clerical error and had to be brought under Rule 59(e)). Under Rule 59(e), 24 “[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the 25 judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The Ninth Circuit has clarified that such motions may only be 26 granted in limited circumstances: “(1) the district court is presented with newly discovered 27 evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial decision that was 1 City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001). But despite citing Rule 59(e), Catlin has 2 || failed to establish that any of these grounds have been met here. Catlin identifies no new 3 || evidence, no clear error, no change in law, and no other extraordinary circumstances to justify 4 || relief from the Court’s prior order or amendment of the judgment, particularly in light of counsel’s 5 representations at the hearing. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to amend the 6 || judgment. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: 5/20/2022 ° aatnode S. GILLIAM, JR. / 2 10 United States District Judge 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28