Trividia Health, Inc. v. Nipro Corporation
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-08450
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Trividia Health v. Nipro, Judge Caproni denied Nipro’s request to reconsider prejudgment-interest rulings.
Nipro Corporation’s request to change the prejudgment-interest rate and exclude certain periods from the interest calculation was denied. The prior interest ruling in favor of Trividia Health, Inc. remained in place.
What happened
In Trividia Health, Inc. v. Nipro Corporation, an arbitration panel found that Nipro had breached an agreement with Trividia and awarded Trividia more than $21 million in damages and legal costs. The court later confirmed that award and awarded Trividia prejudgment interest at New York’s 9% annual statutory rate.
Nipro asked the court to reconsider the interest ruling. It sought a lower interest rate and argued that interest should not apply during certain periods, including delays related to formal service and settlement negotiations. Trividia opposed the request.
Judge Valerie Caproni denied Nipro’s motion. She ruled that Nipro had not shown the extraordinary circumstances required for relief and had either previously raised, or could have previously raised, its arguments.
The detailed version
- Trividia Health, Inc. v. Nipro Corporation · No. 1:20-cv-08450
- Valerie Caproni
- July 21, 2022
Background
After a three-year arbitration proceeding, an International Chamber of Commerce tribunal determined on September 18, 2020, that Nipro Corporation had breached an agreement with Trividia Health, Inc. The tribunal awarded Trividia $21,668,302.30 in damages and legal costs, including accrued interest. The Court confirmed the arbitration award and later granted in part Trividia’s motion for attorneys’ fees, costs, and interest under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2).
Motion for relief
Nipro moved under Rule 60(b)(6), a provision allowing relief from an order for any reason that justifies it, asking the Court to reconsider the portion of its prior order awarding prejudgment interest at New York’s statutory rate of 9% per year. Nipro asked the Court to use either the federal interest rate of 0.13% per year or the 5.25% rate selected by the arbitration panel. Nipro also argued that prejudgment interest should not accrue during a six-month delay associated with formal service or during the period from August 23, 2021, through February 8, 2022, when the parties were engaged in settlement negotiations.
Court’s analysis
The Court explained that reconsideration is rarely granted and requires the movant to identify controlling decisions or information that the Court overlooked and that could reasonably change its decision. Rule 60(b)(6) relief is available only in extraordinary circumstances. The Court concluded that Nipro had not met that standard.
The Court had already considered the parties’ arguments about the appropriate prejudgment-interest rate. The fact that New York’s statutory rate was higher than the federal rate, and the fact that the Court had not expressly addressed the arbitration panel’s rate, did not establish an extraordinary circumstance. Nipro’s proposed middle-ground rate was an argument it could have made in its earlier briefing. The Court likewise concluded that Nipro could have previously raised its arguments about excluding service-related delays and settlement negotiations from the interest period. The Court noted that Nipro had a right to request formal service, but exercising that right caused delays that affected Trividia’s effort to obtain an enforceable judgment.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Caproni denied Nipro’s motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the open motion at Docket 62.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.