U.S. Alliance Management Corp. v. AIRBUS AMERICAS CUSTOMER SERVICES, INC.

Docket 1:23-cv-21505

Filed
2023-04-21
Terminated
2024-01-02
Case type
cv

Outcome

settled

FJC civil IDB DISTRICT=3C OFFICE=1 DOCKET=2321505 FILEDATE=04/21/2023 DISP=13, PROCPROG=10, JUDGMENT=0; codebook: https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/idb/codebooks/Civil%20Codebook%201988%20Forward%2010252023.pdf

Outcome source

Parties and representation

      Party and firm records are not available for this case.

      Panel

        No sourced panel votes are recorded.

        Opinions and documents

        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 23-CV-21505-PAS U.S. ALLIANCE MANAGEMENT CORP. d/b/a U.S. SECURITY, Plaintiff, v. AIRBUS AMERICAS CUSTOMER SERVICES, INC. f/k/a AIRBUS SERVICE COMPANY, INC., a foreign profit corporation, Defendant. □ ORDER ON PREJUDGMENT INTEREST THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte. The Court has considered the parties’ briefs on damages and their expert reports. In an effort to expedite the January 3, 2024 hearing, the Court will rule on Plaintiff US Security’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that it is entitled to prejudgment interest at a rate of 18% per year. In a diversity case, prejudgment interest is a legal issue governed by state law. See, e.g., Venn v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 99 F.3d 1058, 1066, 1068 n.14 (11th Cir. 1996). To buttress its position, Plaintiff cites Paragraph Seven of the Service Agreement, which in part states, “A late fee of one and a half percent (1.5%) per month may be levied on overdue accounts.” DE 44-2 at 2. However, Plaintiff's reading of Paragraph Seven to justify an annual interest rate of 18% is not supported by the Agreement’s language. The paragraph reflects that the provision cited by Plaintiff applies solely when Plaintiff invoices the client weekly and the client does not pay the amount invoiced, after which the account becomes overdue and a fee of one and a half percent per month is levied. There is no dispute that this is a breach of contract case, not one about an overdue account. As such, the applicable rate is Florida’s statutory rate. The Court would like to have Plaintiffs Response to the argument in Subsection B of Defendant’s brief [DE 45 at 8] that prejudgment interest should be imposed effective as of March 28, 2023, the date of the initial Complaint in this lawsuit [DE 1-2 at 6-9], given the history of the litigation prior to its arrival before this Court. As such, Plaintiff shall file its Response by December 29, 2023. If Plaintiff concedes the issue as to the effective date of prejudgment interest, no briefing is necessary. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. Prejudgment interest shall be imposed at Florida’s statutory rate. 2. Plaintiff shall file any Response to Defendant’s argument as to the effective date of prejudgment interest on or before December 29, 2023. DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this sates of December, 2023. UNITED STATES SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE cc: The Honorable Lisette M. Reid Counsel of Record

        Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.