Pensco Trust Company Custodian v. Del Fierro

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 PENSCO TRUST COMPANY CASE NO. C16-01926RSM CUSTODIAN FBO JEFFREY D. 10 HERMANN, IRA ACCOUNT NUMBER 20005343, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 11 REVISED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT 12 Plaintiff, AND DIRECTING REVISED PROPOSED v. ORDER 13 LORINA DEL FIERRO, ET AL., 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff PENSCO Trust Company, f/b/o Jeffrey D. 19 Herman (“PENSCO”)’s motion for entry of judgment, Dkt. #65, and this Court’s previous order 20 directing supplemental briefing, Dkt. #73. Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion, Defendant Lorina 21 Del Fierro’s Response, Plaintiff’s Reply, and Plaintiff’s supplemental briefing, the Court 22 GRANTS Plaintiff’s revised motion for judgment as set forth in its supplemental briefing, Dkt. 23 24 #78, as follows. 25 // 26 // 27 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 28 1 II. BACKGROUND 2 In 2007, Defendant Del Fierro refinanced a mortgage on the property at 4009 SW 323rd 3 Street, Federal Way, Washington (“the Property”) in the amount of $572,850.00. The loan 4 involved in this action is evidenced by an adjustable rate note dated July 16, 2007, secured by a 5 Deed of Trust and recorded as Instrument No. 2007072002339 (“the Loan”), with an original 6 principal amount of $572,850. Dkt. #66 at ¶ 3. Del Fierro defaulted on the Loan in early 2009 7 8 and, after lengthy litigation, Plaintiff filed this action in King County Superior Court on November 9 14, 2016, seeking a judicial foreclosure on the Property. See Dkt. #4. Defendants subsequently 10 removed the action to this Court. Dkt. #1. 11 On August 11, 2017, this Court granted PENSCO’s motion for summary judgment and 12 denied Defendant Del Fierro’s motion for summary judgment, with judgment in favor of Plaintiff 13 entered the same day. Dkts. #55, #56. Defendant Del Fierro subsequently appealed to the U.S. 14 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed this Court’s summary 15 16 judgment order on August 16, 2018. Dkt. #64. Following entry of summary judgment in favor of 17 PENSCO, parties’ attempts to agree to any sale of the Property failed. Consequently, on June 24, 18 2020, Plaintiff moved for entry of judgment against Defendants. Dkt. #65. Specifically, Plaintiff 19 seeks a final judgment amount “that can be provided to the sheriff for execution” at the foreclosure 20 sale. Dkt. #72 at 2. Defendant did not dispute that entry of judgment was proper but argued that 21 more substantive support for the amount requested was warranted. Dkt. #67. 22 23 On August 21, 2020, this Court granted in part Plaintiff’s motion for judgment and found 24 that PENSCO should be awarded judgment against defendant Lorina Del Fierro in the amount of 25 $1,182,303.64. Dkt. #73. The Court also directed parties to meet and confer, then file 26 supplemental briefing as to two remaining amounts: (a) the March 2019 real property taxes and 27 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 28 1 foreclosure costs of King County, totaling $69,547.49; and (b) counsel’s fees and costs incurred 2 by the lender in enforcing the terms of the Deed of Trust, totaling $60,000. Id. at 6. 3 PENSCO filed supplemental briefing on September 25, 2020, agreeing to waive any 4 amount arising from the March 2019 tax payments and legal fees. Dkt. #78. PENSCO now 5 requests entry of judgment in the amount of $1,182,303.64, plus additional amounts for 6 post-judgment costs to be determined at the time of sale. Id. That same day, Defendant Del Fierro 7 8 requested a time extension to file supplemental material by September 28, 2020—three days after 9 parties’ stipulated deadline. Dkt. #79; see also Dkt. #77. 10 PENSCO has not opposed Defendant’s time extension request. However, as of the date of 11 this Order, Defendant has not filed any supplemental briefing opposing the judgment amount or 12 the terms of the judgment summary proposed by Plaintiffs. See Dkt. #78 at 2-4. Accordingly, 13 Defendant’s time extension request, Dkt. #79, is terminated as moot. 14 III. DISCUSSION 15 16 A. Judgment Amount 17 This Court previously determined that PENSCO supported its requested judgment for 18 $1,182,303.64 with “ample information,” including the principle balance due as of April 5, 2010, 19 interest accrued from April 5, 3010 through February 2020, minus the credit for payments related 20 to the bankruptcy case. See Dkt. #73 at 3-6 (setting forth amounts). Despite numerous 21 opportunities to dispute PENSCO’s calculations or direct the Court to any error in Plaintiff’s 22 23 calculations, Defendant has failed to meaningfully challenge Plaintiff’s proposed judgment 24 amount. See id. at 5 (finding Defendant’s objections “vague and generalized”); see also Franchise 25 Holding II, LLC. v. Huntington Restaurants Grp., Inc., 375 F.3d 922, 929 (9th Cir. 2004) (“While 26 HRG takes issue with the accuracy of some of these figures, it never gave the district court any 27 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 28 1 specifics about how these figures were wrong or how its own calculation would differ from 2 Franchise Holding’s calculation.”). Accordingly, Plaintiff is awarded judgment in the sum of 3 $1,182,303.64, plus additional amounts for post-judgment costs to be determined at the time of 4 sale. 5 B. Post-Judgment Interest Rate 6 PENSCO’s proposed Judgment Summary lists the applicable judgment interest rate as 7 8 twelve percent. See Dkt. 78 at 3 (“Plaintiff may add post-judgment amounts for interest at the 9 statutory 12.0% post judgment rate listed above from the date this order is entered, due at the time 10 of the sheriff’s sale of the Subject Property.”) Twelve percent is the appropriate interest rate in 11 state court, but “[i]t has long been the rule that an award of post-judgment interest is procedural in 12 nature and thereby dictated by federal law.” In re Cardelucci, 285 F.3d 1231, 1235 (9th Cir. 2002) 13 (citing Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 473–74 (1965)). “In diversity actions brought in federal 14 court a prevailing plaintiff is entitled to pre-judgment interest at state law rates while 15 16 post-judgment interest is determined by federal law.” Id. (citing Northrop Corp. v. Triad Int’l 17 Mktg., S.A., 842 F.2d 1154, 1155 (9th Cir. 1988). The federal rate of interest on a judgment is 18 governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1961 and adopts the applicable treasury rate published by the Board of 19 Governors of the Federal Reserve. See 258 Siegel’s Prac. Rev. 1 (2013). Accordingly, Plaintiff 20 shall submit a revised proposed order within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order setting 21 out the applicable post-judgment interest rate pursuant to federal law. 22 23 IV. CONCLUSION 24 Having reviewed PENSCO’s Motion for Judgment, Dkt. #65, Defendant Del Fierro’s 25 Response, Dkt. #67, PENSCO’s supplemental briefing, Dkt. #78, and the remainder of the record, 26 the Court finds and ORDERS: 27 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 28 1 (1) Defendant Del Fierro’s Motion for Extension of Time, Dkt. #79, is terminated as moot. 2 (2) Plaintiff PENSCO’s revised Motion for Judgment set forth in its supplemental briefing, 3 Dkt. #78, is GRANTED. PENSCO’s revised proposed order containing the detail set forth above 4 is due within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order. 5 6 DATED this 13th day of October, 2020. 7 8 9 10 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 28