U.S. S.E.C. v. Carrillo, No. 02-12285.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Per Curiam |
| Citation | 325 F.3d 1268 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee Cross-Appellant, v. Bosque Puerto CARRILLO, Defendant-Cross-Appellee, Terence James Ennis, Ralf Stefan Jaeckel, Defendant-Appellants Cross-Appellees. |
| Decision Date | 28 March 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 02-12285. |
v.
Bosque Puerto CARRILLO, Defendant-Cross-Appellee,
Terence James Ennis, Ralf Stefan Jaeckel, Defendant-Appellants Cross-Appellees.
Page 1269
A.C. Strip, Aaron C. Firstenberger, Strip, Fargo, Hoppers & Leithart Co., LPA, Columbus, OH, for Ennis and Jaeckel.
Michael Conley, Mark Pennington, SEC, Washington, DC, for SEC.
Frederick L. Noland, MacDonald, Hoague & Bayless, Seattle, WA, for Carillo.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, and BARKETT and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In the absence of a controlling statute, district courts have the discretion to award prejudgment interest to prevailing litigants. In this case, the district court's order awards prejudgment interest to the plaintiff but does not specify the interest rate or the date from which interest accrues, and we must determine whether the order constitutes a final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the calculation of prejudgment interest in this case is not merely a "ministerial" task, we conclude that the district court's order is not a final judgment. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
In 1993, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a
Page 1270
complaint against Bosque Puerto Carrillo ("Bosque"), a Costa Rican corporation, and two former vice-presidents of Bosque, Ralf Stefan Jaeckel and Terence James Ennis, alleging that the defendants fraudulently offered and sold unregistered securities to finance Bosque's operations1 in violation of federal securities laws. The defendants allegedly promoted unregistered Bosque securities by placing advertisements in the complimentary in-flight magazines of American Airlines and Lacsa Airlines. Jaeckel and Ennis also allegedly arranged for favorable articles about Bosque's securities to appear in the Lacsa Airlines magazine.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the district court granted the motion. On appeal, this court concluded that the district court had personal jurisdiction with respect to all defendants and remanded the case for further proceedings. SEC v. Bosque Puerto Carrillo, 115 F.3d 1540, 1548 (11th Cir.1997). Following remand, the defendants failed to answer the SEC's complaint, and the district court granted the SEC's motion for a default judgment. The district court entered a judgment against Bosque, Jaeckel, and Ennis that enjoined the defendants from violating federal securities laws and declared them jointly and severally liable to pay $10 million as disgorgement. The district court also ordered the defendants to pay prejudgment interest in the sum of $8,457,802.00 to the SEC.
Bosque filed a motion under Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) to set aside the default judgment. The district court granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part; the court denied the motion to set aside the entry of default and denied the motion as to injunctive relief, but granted the motion to set aside the judgment for money damages (disgorgement). The court then held an evidentiary hearing on damages.
During the evidentiary hearing, the SEC stated that the proper method for calculating disgorgement is to determine the total amount that Bosque's United States shareholders paid for their shares and subtract the total value of those shares at the time of their purchase. The SEC offered evidence to support its position that, under this method, the defendants should be ordered to disgorge $15,293,100.00. Furthermore, the SEC asked the court to award $16,023,788.45 in prejudgment interest, which was calculated based on the IRS underpayment rate established in 26 U.S.C. § 6621. In response, Bosque argued that only the individual defendants, Jaeckel and Ennis, should be liable for disgorgement because an order of disgorgement against Bosque would harm the company's current shareholders; the SEC countered that the company shared in the proceeds from the fraudulent sale of unregistered securities and therefore should be liable for disgorgement. In an apparent attempt to contest their liability for securities fraud, Jaeckel and Ennis argued that they had little experience in developing and obtaining investment for this type of business.
The district court entered judgment on March 27, 2002. In its order, the court concluded that Bosque was not liable for disgorgement. The court held that Jaeckel and Ennis were jointly and severally liable for disgorgement in the amount of $1.7 million, the amount of money that was "unaccounted for" in a 1995 audit. Notably, the district court awarded "$1.7 million dollars plus interest" and "retain[ed] jurisdiction to determine the amount of the interest." (R.4-166 at 7 (emphasis added).) Jaeckel and Ennis appealed the order, and the SEC filed a cross-appeal.
Page 1271
The parties raise several issues on appeal, but prior to oral argument this court sua sponte raised another issue for the parties' consideration: whether the district court's March 27, 2002, order — which appears to contemplate an award of prejudgment interest — constitutes a final judgment for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291? We asked the parties to address this issue at oral argument and to file supplemental briefs on this issue following oral argument. After careful consideration of the parties' arguments and their supplemental briefs, we conclude that the district court's March 27, 2002, order is not a final judgment for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because we lack appellate jurisdiction, we do not reach the merits of the issues raised by the parties on appeal.
As a court of limited jurisdiction, we must evaluate our...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sec. v. Huff, Case No. 08–60315–CIV.
...to award prejudgment interest and, if so, at what rate, constitute matters falling within the Court's discretion. See SEC v. Carrillo, 325 F.3d 1268, 1273 (11th Cir.2003) (citing Indus. Risk Insurers v. M.A.N. Gutehoffnungshütte GmbH, 141 F.3d 1434, 1447 (11th Cir.1998)). Courts impose prej......
-
United States v. Muzio, No. 10–13325.
...law.” United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co., 458 U.S. 263, 265, 102 S.Ct. 3081, 3082, 73 L.Ed.2d 754 (1982); see also SEC v. Carrillo, 325 F.3d 1268, 1272 (11th Cir.2003) ( “Although the ‘final judgment rule’ serves many purposes, one of its central objectives is to ensure that this cour......
-
Sec. v. Huff, Case No. 08–60315–CIV.
...to award prejudgment interest and, if so, at what rate, constitute matters falling within the Court's discretion. See SEC v. Carrillo, 325 F.3d 1268, 1273 (11th Cir.2003) (citing Indus. Risk Insurers v. M.A.N. Gutehoffnungshütte GmbH, 141 F.3d 1434, 1447 (11th Cir.1998)). Courts impose prej......
-
Ofs Fitel, LLC v. Epstein, Becker and Green, P.C., No. 07-10200.
...not fall within an exception to the final judgment rule), we must dismiss the case for lack of appellate jurisdiction." SEC v. Carrillo, 325 F.3d 1268, 1272 (11th In certain instances, though, Congress has granted the courts of appeals jurisdiction to hear interlocutory, non-final orders. F......
-
Sec. v. Huff, Case No. 08–60315–CIV.
...to award prejudgment interest and, if so, at what rate, constitute matters falling within the Court's discretion. See SEC v. Carrillo, 325 F.3d 1268, 1273 (11th Cir.2003) (citing Indus. Risk Insurers v. M.A.N. Gutehoffnungshütte GmbH, 141 F.3d 1434, 1447 (11th Cir.1998)). Courts impose prej......
-
United States v. Muzio, No. 10–13325.
...law.” United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co., 458 U.S. 263, 265, 102 S.Ct. 3081, 3082, 73 L.Ed.2d 754 (1982); see also SEC v. Carrillo, 325 F.3d 1268, 1272 (11th Cir.2003) ( “Although the ‘final judgment rule’ serves many purposes, one of its central objectives is to ensure that this cour......
-
Sec. v. Huff, Case No. 08–60315–CIV.
...to award prejudgment interest and, if so, at what rate, constitute matters falling within the Court's discretion. See SEC v. Carrillo, 325 F.3d 1268, 1273 (11th Cir.2003) (citing Indus. Risk Insurers v. M.A.N. Gutehoffnungshütte GmbH, 141 F.3d 1434, 1447 (11th Cir.1998)). Courts impose prej......
-
Ofs Fitel, LLC v. Epstein, Becker and Green, P.C., No. 07-10200.
...not fall within an exception to the final judgment rule), we must dismiss the case for lack of appellate jurisdiction." SEC v. Carrillo, 325 F.3d 1268, 1272 (11th In certain instances, though, Congress has granted the courts of appeals jurisdiction to hear interlocutory, non-final orders. F......