Fidelity Federal Bank, Fsb v. Durga Ma Corp.
| Decision Date | 29 October 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-56447.,03-56447. |
| Citation | 387 F.3d 1021 |
| Parties | FIDELITY FEDERAL BANK, FSB, a federally chartered savings bank, Petitioner-Appellee, v. DURGA MA CORPORATION, a New Jersey corporation, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Philip Brown, Egerman & Brown LLP, Beverly Hills, CA, for appellant.
Timothy M. Maggio, Shane Blackstone, Lord, Bissell & Brook, LLP, Chicago, IL, for appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-02-01990-JFW.
Before: PREGERSON, BEEZER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Durga Ma Corporation ("Durga Ma") appeals the district court's order granting Fidelity Federal Bank's ("Fidelity's") motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) to change the awarded post-judgment interest from the California statutory rate of 10% to the federal rate of 1.76% interest per year pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961. We hold that the district court acted within its discretion when it granted Fidelity's motion and affirm the application of the federal post-judgment interest rate.
Durga Ma prevailed in its breach of contract arbitration against Fidelity. On June 9, 2003, Fidelity moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to correct the rate of post-judgment interest specified in the arbitrators' judgment. The district court indicated its willingness to entertain Fidelity's motion, and this court remanded the case so that the district court could consider the motion. On July 17, 2003, the district court granted Fidelity's Rule 60(b) motion.
The arbitration panel's award states: "The total amount of this award plus attorneys fees and costs is $3,313,588.36 and shall bear interest at the statutory rate from September 27, 2001." (emphasis added).
Durga Ma moved to confirm the arbitration award on July 16, 2002. Fidelity did not object to the motion. Durga Ma maintains that the following language contained in an attachment to its motion put Fidelity on notice of the 10% rate:
The Final Arbitration Award also awarded interest in the statutory amount starting from September 27, 2001. Thus, interest in the amount of $290,506.38 is due as of August 12, 2002. Interest starting on August 13, 2002, will accrue at a per diem rate of $907.83.
Durga Ma points out that the interest rate and per diem are calculated by multiplying the principal amount of the award by 10% per annum.
Fidelity also failed to object to the Proposed Judgment, which states in relevant part:
[T]he Court confirms the arbitration award and orders that judgment be entered in favor of Respondent Durga Ma Corporation and against Petitioner Fidelity Federal Bank, FSB in the following amounts: ...
5. Interest on damages, arbitration attorney's fees, and arbitration costs starting from August 13, 2002, at the statutory rate of 10% (a per diem charge of $907.83).1
The district court entered judgment in favor of Durga Ma on August 23, 2002. Like the proposed judgment, the final judgment provides for post-judgment interest "at the statutory rate of 10% (a per diem charge of $907.83)."
Fidelity maintains that the district court erred because 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a) required that a post-judgment interest rate of 1.76% be applied to federal judgments. Fidelity's Rule 60(b) motion sought to correct this error, arguing that the incorrect interest rate was the result of inadvertence or mistake. Durga Ma counters that the federal rate does not apply because the post-judgment interest in this case is part of the contract damages awarded by the arbitrators, not an incident to the judgment. Durga Ma maintains that the general rule applying the federal rate to post-judgment interest does not apply in this case. Durga Ma reasons that the arbitration was governed by California law and, therefore, the arbitrators' use of the phrase "the statutory rate" necessarily referred to the California rate. Durga Ma also argues that Fidelity fails to satisfy its burden under Rule 60 because it does not sufficiently explain why it repeatedly failed to object to the 10% rate.
We review the district court's order granting or denying a motion under Rule 60(b) for abuse of discretion. Bellevue Manor Assoc. v. United States, 165 F.3d 1249, 1252(9th Cir.1999).
Regarding the rate of post-judgment interest on federal judgments, 28 U.S.C. § 1961 states:
Interest shall be allowed on any money judgment in a civil case recovered in district court.
...
Such interest shall be calculated from the date of entry of the judgment, at a rate equal to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield ... for the calendar week proceeding the judgment.
A judgment confirming an arbitration award is treated similarly to any other federal judgment. 9 U.S.C. § 13; see also Northrop Corp. v. Triad Int'l Mktg. S.A., 842 F.2d 1154, 1155-56 (9th Cir.1988) ().
An exception to § 1961 exists when the parties contractually agree to waive its application. See Citicorp Real Estate, Inc. v. Smith, 155 F.3d 1097, 1107-08 (9th Cir.1998). In Citicorp, the promissory notes at issue included an express, mutually-agreed upon interest rate in the case of default. Id. at 1108. The parties also stipulated to a certain arbitration award provided that interest would accrue at the rate specified in the promissory note after the judgment until collection. Id.
Durga Ma initially argues that it is entitled to the 10% California rate because the California choice-of-law clause in the parties' underlying contract constitutes a waiver of 28 U.S.C. § 1961 and an express agreement to apply California's rate to post-judgment interest. Unlike the specific agreement involved in Citicorp, the choice-of-law clause at issue here makes no reference to interest rates; it evinces no agreement between the parties on this specific issue. Because Fidelity and Durga Ma did not contract to waive § 1961, that provision governs the post-judgment interest awarded in this case.
Durga Ma next contends that the language of the arbitrators' award indicates that they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
HUNT v. CITY of PORTLAND
...applies the same analysis under both rules, and its decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Fidelity Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Durga Ma Corp., 387 F.3d 1021, 1023 (9th Cir.2004) (discussing Rule 60(b)); Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1441 (9th Cir.1991) (discussing Rule 59(e......
-
Cataphora Inc. v. Parker
...exception to section 1961 exists when the parties contractually agree to waive section 1961's application. Fid. Fed. Bank, FSB v. Durga Ma Corp., 387 F.3d 1021, 1023 (9th Cir.2004) (citing Citicorp Real Estate, Inc. v. Smith, 155 F.3d 1097, 1107–08 (9th Cir.1998) (promissory notes at issue ......
-
Bayer Cropscience AG v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 2016-1530
...(5th Cir. 2013); Newmont U.S.A. Ltd. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 615 F.3d 1268, 1275-77 (10th Cir. 2010); Fid. Fed. Bank, FSB v. Durga Ma Corp., 387 F.3d 1021, 1023-24 (9th Cir. 2004); Carte Blanche (Sing.) Pte, Ltd. v. Carte Blanche Int'l, Ltd., 888 F.2d 260, 268-70 (2d Cir. 1989); Parsons & Wh......
-
Ronco Consulting Corp. v. Leading Edge Ventures, LLC
.... . even if the arbitration award purported to grant post-judgment interest [at a different rate]" (quoting Fidelity Fed Bank v. Durga Ma Corp., 387 F.3d 1021, 1024 (9th Cir. 2004))). Cf. Forest Sales Corp. v. Bedingfield, 881 F.2d 111, 111-13 (4th Cir. 1989) (concluding that federal post-j......