 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
American Samoa Government v. Factory Mutual Insurance Co.11/19/2002
were virtually represented in the lawsuit.' [Citation.] In other words, ` f the claim of individual liability is made at some later stage in the action, the judgment can be made individually binding on a person associated with the corporation only if the individual to be charged, personally or through a representative, had control of the litigation and occasion to conduct it with a diligence corresponding to the risk of personal liability that was involved.' [Citation.]" (NEC Electronics Inc. v. Hurt (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 772, 778, italics added.) In other words, the original judgment is amended to add the new party as if the new party was involved in the litigation from the beginning.
Notwithstanding this distinction, we also believe Stockton Theaters provides authority to support the finding of the trial court. The Supreme Court ordered that interest accrued from the date the trial court erred in its finding that the appeal bond was unnecessary. Here, the error we reversed was the failure of the trial court to hear ASG's motion to amend shortly after the original judgment was entered. If the court had heard the original motion and had granted it, interest would have run from date of the original judgment.
The opinion in Stockton Theatres also noted the general rules on post-judgment interest accrual as follows: "A judgment bears legal interest from the date of its entry in the trial court even though it is still subject to direct attack. [Citation.] When a judgment is modified upon appeal, whether upward or downward, the new sum draws interest from the date of entry of the original order, not from the date of the new judgment. [Citation.] On the other hand, when a judgment is reversed on appeal the new award subsequently entered by the trial court can bear interest only from the date of entry of such new judgment. [Citation.]" (Id. at pp. 442-443.) This general rule was applied in Snapp v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (1964) 60 Cal.2d 816.
In Snapp, a judgment of $8,168.25 was reversed on appeal with directions to enter judgment for the plaintiffs in the amount of $25,000. The Snapp court concluded that interest should be awarded from the date of entry of the original judgment. It reasoned that the original judgment was not "reversed" for purposes of this issue, but was, in fact, a modification. (Id. at p. 820.)
In Espinoza v. Rossini (1967) 257 Cal.App.2d 567, a judgment on a jury's verdict plus $10,000 in costs was entered on April 27, 1965. The defendants' motions for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) were granted, but the plaintiff nevertheless filed a cost bill. On appeal, the orders granting the new trial and JNOV motions were reversed and the appeals court ordered the superior court to enter judgment in favor of plaintiff in the original amounts, "plus costs." The issue presented in the subsequent appeal was whether the plaintiff was entitled to costs from the date of the original judgment. The court of appeal, again citing the "general rule" announced in Stockton Theaters, held that the award "is not a new award, it is the original award specified in the verdict" and thus the plaintiff was entitled to interest on the costs from April 27, 1965, the date of the original entry of judgment. (Id. at p. 572.)
In Ehret v. Congoleum Corp. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 202, a jury entered a $3.3 million verdict for a plaintiffs in a wrongful death action. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and reduced the total judgment to $2.6 million. On appeal, the trial court was ordered to reduce the judgment against one of the defendants and costs on appeal were awarded to that defendant. That de
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|