Silva v. B&G Foods, Inc.

Background

At a September 22, 2023 pretrial conference, the court took under submission defendants’ motion in limine asking to prevent plaintiffs from seeking prejudgment interest. The court later granted the motion.

Legal standard

The court applied California Civil Code section 3287(a). That provision permits prejudgment interest when a person is entitled to damages that are certain, or can be made certain by calculation, and the right to recover them became fixed on a particular day. The court explained that the relevant question is whether the defendant knew, or could have calculated from reasonably available information, the amount owed. If the amount of damages can be resolved only through a verdict or judgment, prejudgment interest is not appropriate.

Court’s analysis

The court determined that plaintiffs’ damages would have to be established through testimony at trial. It specifically discussed proposed testimony that Silva purchased 288 boxes of Ortega, with an estimated payment of $3 per purchase, and that Schier purchased 120 boxes, also with an estimated payment of $3 per purchase. Whether jurors would believe that testimony remained uncertain. Because the damages were not certain or capable of being made certain by calculation, the court concluded that plaintiffs were not entitled to prejudgment interest under section 3287(a).

Disposition

Judge Jon S. Tigar granted defendants’ motion to preclude plaintiffs from seeking prejudgment interest. The opinion does not state a disposition of the underlying claims.