Alessi Equipment, Inc. v. American Piledriving Equipment, Inc.
- Judith McCarthy
- 7:18-cv-03976
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Alessi Equipment v. American Piledriving, Judge McCarthy ordered briefing on prejudgment interest before entering judgment on APE’s breach-of-contract counterclaims.
American Piledriving Equipment, Inc.’s breach-of-contract counterclaims against Alessi Equipment, Inc., including the unresolved issue of when prejudgment interest should begin.
What happened
In Alessi Equipment, Inc. v. American Piledriving Equipment, Inc., American Piledriving asked the court to enter judgment on its breach-of-contract counterclaims against Alessi Equipment.
The court said it would enter that judgment in a separate docket entry. Because the parties had not stated when prejudgment interest should begin, the court required them to brief that issue through a motion to amend the judgment.
Judge Judith C. McCarthy issued the order on July 7, 2022. The order addressed only the process for deciding the start date for prejudgment interest; it did not state that amount or date.
The detailed version
- Alessi Equipment, Inc. v. American Piledriving Equipment, Inc. · No. 7:18-cv-03976
- Judith McCarthy
- July 7, 2022
Background
American Piledriving Equipment, Inc. (APE), the defendant and counterclaim-plaintiff, asked the court to enter judgment on its breach-of-contract counterclaims against Alessi Equipment, Inc., the plaintiff and counterclaim-defendant. The opinion identifies the request as docket number 180.
Court’s Action
The court stated that it would enter judgment on the counterclaims through a separate docket entry. The parties had not told the court what date should trigger prejudgment interest. Prejudgment interest is interest added to an award for the period before judgment, and the triggering date determines when that period begins.
The court required the parties to brief the triggering-date issue through a motion to amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The opinion does not state the amount of prejudgment interest, select a triggering date, or include the separate docket entry entering judgment.
Disposition
The court directed the parties to submit briefing through a Rule 59(e) motion concerning the appropriate triggering date for prejudgment interest. The court stated that it would enter judgment on APE’s breach-of-contract counterclaims in a separate docket entry.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.