Gray v. Fedex Ground Package Sys., Inc., 4:06-CV-00422 JAR

• Decision Date: 05 September 2014
• Docket Number: No. 4:06-CV-00422 JAR,4:06-CV-00422 JAR
• Parties: REGINALD GRAY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

REGINALD GRAY, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., Defendant.

No. 4:06-CV-00422 JAR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

September 5, 2014

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the Judgment to Include Pre- and Post-Judgment Interest on the verdict amounts awarded to Plaintiffs Bobby Brown, Reginald Gray, Jammie Hill, Marcus Holmes, Michael Jost, Richard Mitchell, Carl Tucker, James Tichenor, and John Waweru (collectively, "Plaintiffs") pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. § 408.020 and 28 U.S.C. § 1961. (Doc. No. 553) Defendant FedEx opposes the motion insofar as it seeks an award of prejudgment interest. The motion is fully briefed and ready for disposition. For the following reasons, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

Discussion

Prejudgment interest can only be awarded under § 408.020 on liquidated damage claims. Macheca Transport Co. v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 737 F.3d 1188, 1196 (8^th Cir. 2013) (citing Watters v. Travel Guard Int'l, 136 S.W.3d 100, 111 (Mo.Ct.App.2004)). Prejudgment nterest is generally not available for unliquidated claims because the defending party does not know the amount owed and should not be considered in default for failure to pay. Id. (citing Fohn v. Title Ins. Corp. of St. Louis, 529 S.W.2d 1, 5 (Mo.1975); Investors Title Co. v. Chicago

Page 2

Title Ins. Co., 983 S.W.2d 533, 538 (Mo.Ct.App.1998)). "In order to be liquidated so as to allow interest, a claim must be fixed and determined or readily determinable, but it is sufficient if the amount due is ascertainable by computation or by a recognized standard." Id. "An exact calculation of damages need not be presented in order for the claim to be considered liquidated. Damages may still be ascertainable, even in the face of a dispute over monetary value or the parties' experts compute different estimates of the loss." Comens v. SSM St. Charles Clinic Med. Grp., Inc., 335 S.W.3d 76, 82 (Mo.Ct.App.2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

FedEx argues Plaintiffs are not entitled to prejudgment interest because their claims for fraudulent misrepresentation, a tort, do not fall under any of the enumerated categories of § 408.020, i.e., "money due and payable, on written contracts," "accounts after they become due and demand of payment is made," "money recovered for the use of another, and retained without the owner's knowledge of the receipt," or money "due for the forbearance of payment whereof an express promise to pay interest has been made." Mo. Rev. Stat. § 408.020. Moreover, even if Plaintiffs' claims fell into one of these categories, their damages were not liquidated or "readily ascertainable." (Doc. No. 556, p. 2, citing St. John's Bank & Trust Co. v. Intag, Inc., 938 S.W.2d 627, 630 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997)). "When the measure of damages in a tort case is contested, the damages are not readily ascertainable and prejudgment interest may not be awarded." In re Lauer, 371 F.3d 406, 412-13 (8^th Cir. 2004) (award of prejudgment interest reversed because the parties disagreed as to which figures comprised plaintiffs' total recoverable damages for fraud; thus, the claim was not liquidated).

In reply, Plaintiffs contend their damages were ascertainable by a recognized standard. The standard for measuring damages in a fraudulent misrepresentation claim is the difference between what the plaintiff...