## Facts

- Waldimir Adalberto Cruz Romero was injured while using a commercial meat chopper/grinder manufactured by ITW Food Equipment Group LLC.
- Romero sued ITW in a products-liability action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- The court instructed the jury that if it found for Romero, the verdict should fully compensate him for all of his injuries.
- The jury returned a verdict for Romero of almost $3 million.
- The clerk entered judgment for Romero, and post-judgment interest applied from the date of entry under 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
- ITW notified the court that it intended to appeal and moved to stay execution of the judgment pending appeal, proposing a $3,000,000 supersedeas bond to secure the judgment, costs, and post-judgment interest during the appeal.
- Romero did not oppose a stay pending appeal, but moved to amend the judgment to add prejudgment interest, asserting that prejudgment interest would increase the judgment to $4,022,995.

## Issues

1. Under District of Columbia law and the circumstances of this personal-injury products-liability verdict, should the court amend the judgment to add prejudgment interest?
2. Should the court stay execution of the money judgment pending appeal, and is a $3,000,000 supersedeas bond sufficient security?

## Decision

- The court denied Romero’s motion to amend the judgment to add prejudgment interest.
- The court granted ITW’s motion to stay execution pending appeal and approved a $3,000,000 supersedeas bond as security for the judgment, costs, and post-judgment interest.

## Legal Principles

- In federal court, the availability of prejudgment interest in a tort case is governed by applicable local substantive law (here, District of Columbia law), while the procedure for altering a judgment is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
- Under District of Columbia law, prejudgment interest in tort actions is not automatic; it may be awarded as part of damages when needed to make the plaintiff whole.
- When a jury is instructed to fully compensate the plaintiff for all injuries and returns a substantial lump-sum award, a post-verdict addition of prejudgment interest may be refused where it would function as an extra layer of recovery rather than compensation needed to make the plaintiff whole.
- A motion to amend or alter a judgment (commonly under Rule 59(e)) is an exceptional remedy and is not used to re-argue damages absent a clear legal error or comparable justification.
- Post-judgment interest on a federal money judgment runs from the date judgment is entered under 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
- Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62, a party seeking to stay execution of a money judgment pending appeal generally must post a supersedeas bond in an amount adequate to secure the judgment plus costs and post-judgment interest during the appeal.

## Conclusion

In this post-judgment order, the District of Columbia federal court left intact the jury’s nearly $3 million compensatory verdict for Romero, declined to add prejudgment interest because the jury had been instructed to fully compensate him, and stayed execution of the judgment pending ITW’s appeal on the condition that ITW post a $3,000,000 supersedeas bond to secure the judgment, costs, and post-judgment interest.


Romero v. ITW Food Equipment Group LLC, 2015 WL 4692357 (2015)