Case 3:15-cv-05343-MAS-TJB Document 61 Filed 08/30/18 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 783
`Case 3:15-cv-05343-MAS—TJB Document 61 Filed 08/30/18 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 783
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`
`__—1
`
`TRYG INSURANCE, et a1.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`C.H. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE,
`etal.,
`
`INC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`-——_a—F_____l
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 15-5343 (MAS) (TJB)
`
`MEMORANDUM ORDER
`
`This matter comes before the court on Plaintiffs Tom’s Confectionery Group (“Toms”) and
`
`Tryg Insurance’s (“Tryg”) (collectively, “‘Plaiirtiffs”) motion for prejudgment interest. (ECF No.
`
`54.) Defendant CH. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (“CHRW") filed opposition (ECF No. 55) and
`
`Plaintiffs replied (ECF No. 56). The Court has carefully considered the parties’ submissions and
`
`decides this matter without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 78.1. For the reasons set
`
`forth below, the Court grants Plaintiffs” motion and awards prejudgrnent interest in the amount of
`
`$3,849.20.
`
`On May 4, 2017, the Court held a one-day bench trial to address the issue of CHRW’S
`
`liability under the Carmack Amendment. On November 28, 2017, the Court entered an Opinion
`
`and Final Judgment finding CHRW liable and awarding $124,034.31 to Plaintiffs. (Nov. 28, 2017
`
`Op., ECF No. 52.) On the same date,
`
`the Court entered final default judgment against
`
`non—appearing Defendant National Refrigerated Trucking (“NRT”). (ECF No. 51.) The Court
`
`found CHRW and NRT jointly and severally liable for the damages amount.
`
`(.1. Order 11 2, ECF
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-05343-MAS-TJB Document 61 Filed 08/30/18 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 784
`Case 3:15-cv-05343-MAS—TJB Document 61 Filed 08/30/18 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 784
`
`No. 53.) The Court also permitted Plaintiffs to submit proposed calculations regarding
`
`prejudgrnent interest.
`
`(Id. at 11 3.) The Court now considers this issue.1
`
`The determination of prejudgment interest is not governed by statute. A district court has
`
`discretion in deciding the appropriate amount of prejudgment interest, but may look to the
`
`governing statute for postjudgment interest where appropriate. Sun Snip, Inc. v. Marson Navigation
`
`Ca, 785 F.2d 59, 63 (3d Cir. 1986) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1961). Plaintiffs argue that the Court
`
`should use the postjudgment interest formula set out in 28 U.S.C. § 1961, which calculates interest
`
`at a rate equal to the weekly average one—year constant maturity treasury yield (“CMT”). The
`
`CMT is published weekly by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and is the
`
`average yield of a range of Treasury securities, adjusted to the equivalent of a one-year maturity.
`
`“[T]he 52-week Treasury bill rate has been found by Congress and by the marketplace to be a
`
`suitable approximation of the available return for a typical risk-free investment.” Davis v. Rutgers
`
`Casualty Ins. Co., 964 F. Supp. 560, 576 (D.N.J. 1997). As such, Plaintiffs ask the Court to apply
`
`the CMT rate of 1.75%,2 the rate published during the calendar week preceding the date of the
`
`judgment. Such a calculation would result in $9,586.82 in prejudgment interest.
`
`In contrast,
`
`1 Neither party contests that prejudgment interest is appropriate. Determining whether to award
`prejudgment interest is in the sole discretion ofthe District Court. Feather v. United Mine Workers,
`711 F.2d 530, 540 (3d Cir. 1983).
`In a federal question jurisdiction case, such as this, the Court
`considers: “(1) whether the claimant has been less than diligent in prosecuting the action;
`(2) whether
`the defendant has been unjustly enriched;
`(3) whether an award would be
`compensatory; and (4) Whether countervailing equitable considerations militate against a
`surcharge." Id. (citing Nedd v. United Mine Workers qumer., 488 F. Supp. 1208, 1219-20 (MD.
`Pa. 1980)). An award of prejudgment interest serves to account for the possible loss that monies
`owed would have presumably earned. (“caper Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Amana Refrigeration, Inc, 63
`F.3d 262, 284 (3d Cir. 1995). The Court is satisfied that awarding prejudgment interest is
`appropriate in this case. Thus, the question before the Court is the proper calculation of interest.
`
`3 Although Plaintiffs represent that the CMT rate was 1.75% (Affidavit in Support of Mot. 3 n.1,
`ECF No. 54-2), the Court’s review of the CMT rates appears to show the rate as 1.62%.
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-05343-MAS-TJB Document 61 Filed 08/30/18 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 785
`Case 3:15-cv-05343-MAS—TJB Document 61 Filed 08/30/18 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 785
`
`Defendant asks the Court to use its discretion, as allowed in Sun Ship, and reduce the interest fees
`
`based on the fluctuating federal interest rates during the period of loss.
`
`The Court declines to adopt Plaintiffs’ calculation. The applicable CMT rate at the time of
`
`judgment was much higher than the average interest rate over the fifty-three-month period in
`
`question. While the Court recognizes the advantage of using the CMT rate as a method of
`
`calculating prejudgment interest, here, using one rate for the entire period would be an unfair
`
`windfall
`
`to Plaintiffs.
`
`In balancing these equitable considerations,
`
`the Court will award
`
`prejudgment interest based on the CMT rate, adjusted to fairly reflect the entire time-period at
`
`issue.
`
`The Eastern District of Pennsylvania followed a similar approach in O’Neill v. Sears,
`
`Roebuck and Ca, 108 F. Supp. 2d 443, 446 (ED. Pa. 2000).
`
`In O’Neill, following a jury verdict
`
`for the plaintiff in an employment action, the court calculated prejudgment interest on awarded
`
`back pay. (1d) The court applied the corresponding CMT rate for each individual year of awarded
`
`back pay. instead of using one rate for the entire period.
`
`(1d,) The Court finds this method
`
`equitable in the current situation. The Court will, therefore, use the CMT rate for calculating the
`
`prejudgment interest, but calculate the prejudgment interest on a yearly basis.
`
`To satisfy the goal of making Plaintiffs whole while balancing the interest of fairness, the
`
`Court will calculate the CMT rate from the date of judgment—November 28, 2017~using the
`
`CMT rate from the week preceding the date of judgment only for the year of loss it reflects.
`
`Calculating the CMT rate over the span of approximately four years thus results in a prejudgment
`
`interest of $3,849.20 as follows:
`
`La.)
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-05343-MAS-TJB Document 61 Filed 08/30/18 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 786
`Case 3:15-cv-05343-MAS—TJB Document 61 Filed 08/30/18 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 786
`
`Date Range
`Interest
`Prejudgment Interest Amount
`
`Rate3
`
`July 17, 2013 —November 28, 2013
`
`0.13%
`
`0.14%
`
`November 29, 2014 — November 28, 2015
`0.51%
`
`November 29, 2015 — November 28, 2016
`0.79%
`
`November 29, 2016 — November 28, 2017
`1.62%
`
`
`$53.75
`
`$173.65
`
`$632.57
`
`$979.87
`
`Accordingly, IT IS on this 30th day of August 2018. ORDERED that:
`
`1.
`
`Defendants are jointly and severally liable for prejudgment interest in the amount
`
`of $3,849.20.
`
`2.
`
`The Clerk shall close this matter.
`
`3/ Michael A. Ship};
`MICHAEL A. SHIPP
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`3 The CMT rates are available at www.federalreserve.gov/clatadownload/Choose.aspx’2re12Hl 5.
`
`