BMO Bank N.A. v. Gattani
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:24-cv-06897
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In BMO Bank N.A. v. Gattani, Judge Ricardo required BMO to explain or waive prejudgment interest after an earlier default judgment.
BMO Bank N.A. must either support its prejudgment-interest claim with a calculation and evidence or waive that claim. Prateek Gattani may respond after receiving the order and BMO’s supplemental submission.
What happened
In BMO Bank N.A. v. Gattani, Judge Paul Engelmayer had already entered a default judgment against Prateek Gattani. The court then began determining the damages and other monetary relief available under that judgment.
BMO had claimed prejudgment interest in its complaint, but its later filings did not calculate the interest or explain how it should be calculated. The court directed BMO to submit a calculation, supported by evidence, addressing the interest rates and starting dates for both the unpaid principal and fees, or to waive its interest claim.
The order was issued by Judge Henry J. Ricardo, who set deadlines for BMO’s supplemental filing and proof of service and for any response from Gattani. The court did not set the final prejudgment-interest amount in this order.
The detailed version
- BMO Bank N.A. v. Gattani · No. 1:24-cv-06897
- Paul Engelmayer
- July 22, 2025
Background
On January 10, 2025, Judge Paul Engelmayer entered an order of default judgment against Defendant Prateek Gattani. A default judgment is a judgment entered after a defendant fails to defend the case. On January 16, 2025, Judge Henry J. Ricardo entered a scheduling order for a damages inquest, meaning a process for determining the monetary relief owed after the default judgment.
The scheduling order directed BMO Bank N.A. to submit proposed findings and legal conclusions or to state that it would rely on its earlier submissions concerning injunctive relief, damages, and other monetary relief permitted by the default judgment. BMO later stated that it would rely on those earlier submissions.
Prejudgment Interest
BMO’s complaint claimed prejudgment interest, which is interest accruing before judgment. The court stated that New York law requires an award of prejudgment interest to the prevailing party on a breach-of-contract claim. The default rate is nine percent per year, although the parties may agree to a different rate.
The court found that BMO’s later filings did not calculate prejudgment interest or explain how the calculation should be performed. The court therefore directed BMO, by August 5, 2025, to file a supplemental submission and an Excel spreadsheet showing its proposed calculation. The submission must address:
- Whether the interest rate for the unpaid principal is the statutory rate, a contractually agreed rate, or another rate;
- The date or dates from which interest on the unpaid principal should be calculated;
- Whether the interest rate for the fees identified in the fee letters is the statutory rate, a contractually agreed rate, or another rate; and
- The date or dates from which interest on those fees should be calculated.
BMO may instead file a supplemental submission waiving its claim for prejudgment interest by the same deadline.
Disposition and Deadlines
The court directed BMO to serve Defendant Gattani with the order and its supplemental submission and to file proof of service by August 8, 2025. Gattani’s response, if any, was due by August 22, 2025. This order required additional submissions; it did not determine the final amount of prejudgment interest.
Classification
This is a procedural order concerning the damages-inquest process and the information needed to determine prejudgment interest. It does not decide the underlying breach-of-contract claim or establish the final interest amount.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.