 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
North Oakland Medical Clinic v. Rogers6/8/1998
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
Introduction
Plaintiffs North Oakland Medical Clinic and Bruce E. Thompson, M.D., appeal from an order after judgment denying plaintiffs prejudgment interest on a damage award following a jury trial. The trial court set aside its previous order awarding plaintiffs $39,025.43 prejudgment interest and denied plaintiffs interest on the grounds that plaintiffs had failed to move for an award of prejudgment interest in the trial court. Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred in denying them interest arguing that no particular procedure is required to request interest and that they in fact requested an award of prejudgment interest in their complaint and following judgment when they presented the court the order awarding interest.
Statement of the Case/Facts
Defendants and respondents, attorney James M. Rogers and the Law Offices of James M. Rogers (collectively Rogers), orally contracted with plaintiffs for plaintiffs to provide medical care and services to some of Rogers' personal injury clients. Rogers agreed to pay the cost of such medical services, at plaintiffs' standard rates, as billed, regardless of the amount of money recovered by those clients/patients on their personal injury claims.
Rogers failed to pay certain sums when due. On August 19, 1992, plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Alameda County Superior Court alleging various causes of action founded on the failure of Rogers to pay for the agreed upon services.
On November 21, 1994, the trial court granted partial summary judgment, eliminating all causes of action of plaintiffs' complaint except for the Second Cause of Action for breach of an oral contract. The case proceeded to trial on that cause of action.
On September 20, 1995, the jury returned its a special verdict in favor of plaintiffs, awarding plaintiffs damages of $75,928.01 for defendants' breach of the oral contract. The special verdict indicated the jury had arrived at that sum after set-offs for "those patients that were paid after May of 1992, less those patients that were paid in full with letter attached, exhibits B1-B44 and K1-K15." (None of the exhibits were included in the record on appeal.) No interest was included in the jury verdict and none had been requested in the special verdict form.
Plaintiffs filed their Memorandum of Costs on October 5, 1995. They did not request interest therein. Judgment was entered on the jury verdict on October 11, 1995, and Notice of Entry of Judgment was served on that date. On October 20, 1995, plaintiffs moved for a new trial on the issue of accord and satisfaction, arguing the insufficiency of the evidence of accord and satisfaction and that the jury's reduction of the damage award on that basis should be overturned.
On November 1, 1995, Rogers moved to tax costs. On November 13, 1995, plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion. On November 15, 1995, following a hearing, the trial court denied plaintiffs' new trial motion.
On November 30, 1995, the court heard and then denied Rogers' motion to tax costs. No request for prejudgment interest was raised during this hearing.
On January 3, 1996, plaintiffs presented an order to the court awarding costs of $9,235.99 and ordering "that interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum from August 19, 1990 accrue on said judgment in the total amount of $39,025.43, calculated as follows: . . . . " (There followed a calculation based upon the dates of Rogers' breaches.)
On February 1, 1996, Rogers moved to set aside the order awarding prejudgment interest. A hearing was held on Rogers' motion, at which time plaintiffs'
Page 1 2 3 4 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|