Filed: Jan. 17, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 17, 2012
Summary: ORDER PHILIP A. BRIMMER, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's unopposed motion to quantify prejudgment interest [Docket No. 163]. On January 11, 2012, the Court ordered that judgment enter, inter alia, in favor of plaintiff and against defendants Felix Bros., Inc. and Ralph Felix on plaintiff's trademark claim in the amount of $2,299.08, plus statutory interest. See Docket No. 162 at 2. In the present motion, plaintiff requests that the statutory interest due on t
Summary: ORDER PHILIP A. BRIMMER, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's unopposed motion to quantify prejudgment interest [Docket No. 163]. On January 11, 2012, the Court ordered that judgment enter, inter alia, in favor of plaintiff and against defendants Felix Bros., Inc. and Ralph Felix on plaintiff's trademark claim in the amount of $2,299.08, plus statutory interest. See Docket No. 162 at 2. In the present motion, plaintiff requests that the statutory interest due on th..
More
ORDER
PHILIP A. BRIMMER, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's unopposed motion to quantify prejudgment interest [Docket No. 163]. On January 11, 2012, the Court ordered that judgment enter, inter alia, in favor of plaintiff and against defendants Felix Bros., Inc. and Ralph Felix on plaintiff's trademark claim in the amount of $2,299.08, plus statutory interest. See Docket No. 162 at 2. In the present motion, plaintiff requests that the statutory interest due on the $2,299.08 is $350.76. Defendants do not dispute that calculation. Therefore, it is
ORDERED that plaintiff's unopposed motion to quantify prejudgment interest [Docket No. 163] is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that judgment shall enter in favor of plaintiff and against defendants Felix Bros., Inc. and Ralph Felix on plaintiff's trademark claim in the amount of $2,299.08 plus $350.76 in statutory interest. Judgment shall otherwise enter in accordance with the Court's January 11, 2012 ruling [Docket No. 162].
