Capital One, National Association v. Paige Hospitality Group, LLC
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:19-cv-09358
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Capital One v. Paige Hospitality, Judge Gorenstein corrected an earlier order and directed entry of a $380,083.20 judgment plus specified interest.
Capital One, National Association, which received a judgment for $380,083.20 plus the specified interest, and the defendants named in the case caption.
What happened
In Capital One, National Association v. Paige Hospitality Group, LLC, the court corrected an earlier opinion and order dated July 22, 2022. The correction changed the word “satisfied” to “entered” in the concluding paragraph.
The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of Capital One for $380,083.20 in unpaid principal and late fees. Interest was to accrue at $66.24 per day from December 26, 2018, until judgment was entered, followed by interest at the statutory rate under federal law.
Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein also stated that Capital One had not shown clear contract language allowing post-judgment interest at the contractual daily rate. The order therefore specified the statutory post-judgment interest rate.
The detailed version
- Capital One, National Association v. Paige Hospitality Group, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-09358
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- July 26, 2022
What the order changed
The court corrected its July 22, 2022 Opinion and Order. It replaced the word “satisfied” with “entered” in the concluding paragraph.
Judgment and interest
The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of Capital One for $380,083.20, representing unpaid principal and late fees. The judgment was to include interest at $66.24 per day from December 26, 2018, through the date judgment was entered. After entry of judgment, interest was to accrue at the statutory rate provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
The court stated that it did not understand Capital One’s submissions to request post-judgment interest at the contractual rate of $66.24 per day. It added that, even if Capital One had made that request, a contract would need to contain “clear, unambiguous and unequivocal” language showing that a different rate applied to judgments or judgment debts. The court stated that Capital One had identified no such language in any agreement.
Ruling
Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein ordered the correction and directed entry of the judgment with the interest terms described above.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.