Flight Phase I Owner, LLC v. Incipio, LLC
N/A
Motion type
Ruling
17 Cal.5 th 207, 225-226 & fn. 11.) Here, Defendants do not state when or how they learned of this case and the judgment. They simply state the “only became aware of this case years later, after a judgment had already been entered.” Based on the foregoing, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The court clerk is directed to give notice of this ruling.
10. Flight Phase I Owner, LLC v. Incipio, LLC 202301367887 CONTINUED TO JUNE 24, 2026, to be heard in Department C61 as stated in the June 5, 2026 minute order.
11. Melzter vs. Cardiology Specialists of Orange County 2025-01530605 Before the court is the motion to amend the judgment to add post-award prejudgment interest filed by petitioners Dr. Paul B. Melzter and Paul Meltzer, M.D., Inc. (collectively, Petitioners).
As more fully set forth below, the motion is DENIED because, although the court agrees with the authorities and arguments Petitioners make, the court finds it lacks jurisdiction to amend the judgment and award pre-judgment interest at this time because respondent Cardiology Specialists of Orange County (Respondent) have filed a notice of appeal that divests this court of jurisdiction and the award of prejudgment interest is not a collateral matter in the nature of costs or attorney fees.
Petitioners request the court amend the judgment to add prejudgment interest from the date the underlying arbitration award was issued on November 5, 2025, through to the date judgment was entered on March 27, 2026. Petitioners do not seek prejudgment interest on any sums prior to the date the award was issued, which the arbitrator specifically refused to grant.
The law is clear that a successful petitioner in arbitration is entitled to recover prejudgment interest from the date of the arbitration award until the date judgment is entered on that award. The statutory authority for this award of prejudgment interest is Civil Code section 3287, subdivision (a). (Britz, Inc. v. Alfa-Laval Food & Dairy Co. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1106-1107 (Britz); Pierotti v. Torian (2000) 81 Cal.App.4 th 17, 27 (Pierotti); County of Solano v. Lionsgate Corp. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4 th 741, 753.)
As the Britz court explained, “[A petition to confirm an arbitration award does not seek] an award of damages and attorney fees on the original contracts [or underlying
Cited authorities
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Ask about this ruling
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”