Paragon Digital Lifestyle Inc. v. Adaptive Micro-Ware, Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-04725
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Paragon Digital Lifestyle Inc. v. Adaptive Micro-Ware, Inc., Judge Furman amended the judgment to add $74,266.97 in prejudgment interest.
Paragon Digital Lifestyle Inc. and Micro-Ware, Inc.; the amended judgment increases the amount owed under the judgment entered in Paragon Digital Lifestyle Inc.’s favor on Count One.
What happened
Paragon Digital Lifestyle Inc. had already obtained a judgment in its favor on Count One. The court’s October 19, 2022 order provided the reasons for amending that judgment, but this opinion does not describe the underlying claim or dispute.
The amended judgment adds $74,266.97 in prejudgment interest: $73,839.97 for interest before the verdict and $427.00 for interest after the verdict. The total judgment is $346,752.97.
Judge Jesse Furman’s court entered the amended judgment on October 24, 2022. The document does not state the legal basis of Count One or provide additional details about the parties’ dispute.
The detailed version
- Paragon Digital Lifestyle Inc. v. Adaptive Micro-Ware, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-04725
- Jesse Furman
- Oct. 24, 2022
Background
The court had previously entered a judgment in Paragon Digital Lifestyle Inc.’s favor on Count One. The amended-judgment document states that the amendment was made for the reasons given in the court’s October 19, 2022 order. That earlier order is not included here, so the underlying claim and the original judgment amount cannot be determined from this text.
Amended Judgment
The court amended the judgment by adding $74,266.97 in prejudgment interest. The amount consists of $73,839.97 in interest before the verdict and $427.00 in interest after the verdict. The amended judgment states that the total amount is $346,752.97.
Disposition
The judgment was amended to include the stated prejudgment interest. Judge Jesse Furman is identified in the supplied case information; the document itself is dated October 24, 2022 and bears the signature of the court clerk. This order addresses the judgment amount and does not decide the underlying merits of Count One.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.