United Specialty Insurance Company v. Bani Auto Group, Inc.

— 1 — — 2 — 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION — 6 — 7 UNITED SPECIALTY INSURANCE Case No. 18-cv-01649-BLF COMPANY, — 8 — Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 9 REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF v. CERTAIN CLAIMS AND ENTRY OF 10 JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS 4 AND 7 BANI AUTO GROUP, INC.; SIA BANI & 11 COMPANY, LLC; BANI INVESTMENTS, [Re: ECF 79, 87] LLC; CLUB SPORTIVA, INC. f/k/a 12 DRIVE A DREAM, INC.; and SIAVOSH BANIHASHEMI a/k/a SIA BANI, — 13 — Defendants. — 14 — — 15 — 16 On September 14, 2021, the Court granted partial summary judgment for Plaintiff United 17 Specialty Insurance Company and against Bani Auto Group, Inc., Club Sportiva, Inc., and Siavosh 18 Banihashemi a/k/a Sia Bani (“Sia Bani”) on Claims 4 and 7 of the complaint. See MSJ Order, 19 ECF 78. Plaintiff thereafter filed a request for dismissal of all remaining claims, and entry of 20 judgment on Claims 4 and 7. See Pl.’s Req., ECF 79. Defendants filed an objection to Plaintiff’s 21 request, asserting that Plaintiff erroneously sought prejudgment interest at a rate of 10% when the 22 correct prejudgment interest rate is 7%. See Defs.’ Obj., ECF 83. Defendants did not object to 23 any other aspect of Plaintiff’s request for dismissal of certain claims and entry of judgment. See 24 id. 25 The Court entered two stipulated orders deferring ruling on Plaintiff’s request, as the 26 parties were attempting resolve the remaining issues in the case. See Orders, ECF 84, 86. 27 However, on November 29, 2021, Plaintiff renewed its request for dismissal of certain claims and 1 Req., ECF 87. Plaintiff now concedes that the appropriate prejudgment interest rate is 7%. See id. 2 || The Court agrees that in this diversity action, California law applies and entitles Plaintiff to 3 || prejudgment interest at a rate of 7%, running from the date of Plaintiffs payment of $1,000,000 4 || on August 30, 2019. “State law governs prejudgment interest in a diversity action.” Westport Ins. 5 Corp. v. California Cas. Mgmt. Co., 916 F.3d 769, 781 (9th Cir. 2019). “The California 6 || Constitution generally affixes the rate of preyudgment interest at seven percent per annum for 7 || judgments rendered in state courts unless specified otherwise by the legislature.” Id.; see also 8 || MGA Ent., Inc. v. Hartford Ins. Grp., 869 F. Supp. 2d 1117, 1136 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (insurer’s 9 claim for equitable contribution was subject to prejudgment interest at a rate of 7%). 10 Because Plaintiff has conceded the only issue as to which Defendants objected — the 11 applicable prejudgment interest rate — the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs request for dismissal of 12 || certain claims and entry of judgment on Claims 4 and 7. A separate dismissal order and a 5 13 || judgment will issue concurrently with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. a 16 Dated: November 30, 2021 hot Lown harmed BETH LABSON FREEMAN 2 18 United States District Judge — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —