Carl J. Cieslikowski v. FCA US LLC ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 Case No. ED CV 17-562 MRW 13 CARL J. CIESLIKOWSKI and JUDGMENT CATHY CIESLIKOWSKI, 14 Plaintiffs, 15 v. 16 FCA US LLC, 17 Defendant. 18 19 20 1. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs Carl and Cathy 21 Cieslikowski and against Defendant FCA US LLC in the amount of 22 $308,530.96. Defendant FCA will also pay Plaintiffs the sum of $13,378.20 in 23 fees and costs. Payment will be due within five working days from the 24 issuance of this judgment. 25 2. The amounts listed above will bear prejudgment and 26 postjudgment interest as allowed by law. 27 28 1 3. The Court reads the competing submissions from the parties 2 | (Docket # 233 and 234) as unbriefed requests for a ruling on the propriety of 3 | interest awards. The requests of both parties are denied without prejudice for 4 | failure to comply with the Local Rules of Court. Simply shoving a couple of 5 | judicial decisions into a court filing (Plaintiffs) or silently refusing to take up 6 | the issue (Defendant) won’t do it with me. However, without giving an 7 | unconstitutional advisory opinion, should the parties bring the issue back to 8 | me, they can address whether California Civil Code section 6289(b) or 9 | 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a-b) applies to a putative calculation of postjudgment 10 | interest. See, e.g., American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. United Computer Systems, 11 | Inc., 98 F.3d 1206, 1209 (9th Cir. 1996) (“state law determines the rate of 12 | prejudgment interest, and postjudgment interest is governed by federal law”). 13 ele 15 | Dated: July 12, 2021 16 HON. MICHAELR.WILNER 17 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28