Loggervale v. County of Alameda
- William Alsup
- 3:20-cv-04679
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Loggervale v. County of Alameda, Judge Alsup denied plaintiffs’ request to add pre- and post-judgment interest and a Bane Act civil penalty.
The three plaintiffs’ monetary judgment was not amended to add pre-judgment interest or the $25,000 Bane Act civil penalty. The judgment also was not amended to list post-judgment interest, although the court stated that interest automatically applies under federal law. The defendants were not required to pay those additional amounts through this motion.
What happened
In Loggervale v. County of Alameda, a mother and her two daughters sued two deputies and Alameda County after they were detained and handcuffed in separate patrol cars for 91 minutes. After a six-day trial, a jury found for the plaintiffs and awarded $8.25 million. The plaintiffs then asked to change the judgment to include pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and a $25,000 civil penalty under California’s Bane Act.
The court denied the request for pre-judgment interest because the verdict included punitive treble damages under the Bane Act, and adding interest to the entire award would go beyond compensation. It also denied the request to amend the judgment to list post-judgment interest because that interest automatically applies to a civil judgment, even when it is not written in the judgment. Finally, the court denied the request for the $25,000 penalty because the plaintiffs had chosen the Bane Act damages option allowing up to three times actual damages, and the two recovery options could not both be used.
Judge William Alsup therefore denied the plaintiffs’ Rule 59 motion to alter the judgment.
The detailed version
- Loggervale v. County of Alameda · No. 3:20-cv-04679
- William Alsup
- July 14, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California’s Tom Bane Civil Rights Act based on their detention and handcuffing in separate patrol cars for 91 minutes. The opinion describes the plaintiffs as one mother and two daughters, all African American. After a six-day trial, the jury found for the plaintiffs and awarded a total of $8.25 million. The court stated that the award was understood to include treble damages against Deputy Steven Holland under the Bane Act. The court had previously ruled that Alameda County was liable only for compensatory damages, not the Bane Act treble damages.
The plaintiffs filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which allows a party to ask the court to alter a judgment. They requested pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and the Bane Act’s $25,000 civil penalty.
Pre-judgment interest
The court denied pre-judgment interest. It explained that such interest is generally intended to compensate plaintiffs, but the Bane Act treble-damages add-on in this case had already been determined to be punitive. Because the plaintiffs sought interest on the entire verdict, adding the interest would go beyond compensation and further punish the defendants. The court also found no other fairness considerations supporting the award.
Post-judgment interest
The court recognized that 28 U.S.C. § 1961 makes post-judgment interest mandatory on money judgments in civil cases. The parties agreed that the plaintiffs were automatically entitled to that interest. But the court held that the judgment did not need to be amended to state the interest expressly. Because both the original and amended judgments were silent about interest, the court denied this part of the motion as moot.
Bane Act civil penalty
The court denied the request to add the $25,000 civil penalty available under California Civil Code § 52(b). The Bane Act incorporates remedies from Civil Code § 52. The court had previously interpreted those remedies as providing two alternative recovery options: recovery under § 52(a), including up to three times actual damages, or recovery under § 52(b), including actual damages, exemplary damages, and a $25,000 civil penalty. The plaintiffs had requested, and the jury had received, an instruction based on the § 52(a) option. The court concluded that adding the separate § 52(b) civil penalty would not fit that statutory structure.
Disposition
Judge William Alsup denied the plaintiffs’ Rule 59(e) motion to alter the judgment to include pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and the Bane Act civil penalty available under § 52(b).
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.