-WMC USA v. 32.42 Acres of Land, et al, No. 3:2005cv01137 - Document 118 (S.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER Re: Interest Calculation re 115 Motion. The Court does not find the DT Act rate unreasonable or constitutionally inadequate. The parties shall submit a proposed Final Judgment, in accordance with this Order, on or before August 20, 2010. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 8/5/10. (lao)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-WMC USA v. 32.42 Acres of Land, et al Doc. 118 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 12 CASE NO. 05cv1137 DMS (RBB) Plaintiff, ORDER RE: INTEREST CALCULATION vs. 13 32.42 ACRES OF LAND, et. al. 14 Defendants. 15 16 On April 20, 2010, a jury fixed the amount of just compensation in this matter at $2,910,000. 17 Pending before the Court is the parties’ dispute as to the proper interest calculation on the difference 18 between the jury award and the amount the Government deposited as estimated just compensation. 19 The Government argues the appropriate rate is that set forth in the Declaration of Taking Act (“DT 20 Act”), 40 U.S.C. § 3114 et seq. The Port District argues the DT Act rate is insufficient due to the 21 length of time between the taking, May 31, 2005, and the verdict. 22 The DT Act provides, in pertinent part: 23 The district court shall calculate interest required to be paid under this subchapter as follows: 24 25 26 (1) Period of not more than one year.–Where the period for which interest is owed is not more than one year, interest shall be calculated from the date of taking at an annual rate equal to the weekly average one-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar week preceding the date of taking. 27 28 -1- 08CV0563 Dockets.Justia.com 1 (2) Period of more than one year.–Where the period for which interest is owed is more than one year, interest for the first year shall be calculated in accordance with paragraph (1) and interest for each additional year shall be calculated on the amount by which the award of compensation is more than the deposit referred to in section 3114 of this title, plus accrued interest, at an annual rate equal to the weekly average one-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar week preceding the beginning of each additional year. 2 3 4 5 6 40 U.S.C. § 3116(a). A court is not bound by the statutory interest rate if it determines “the statutory 7 formula is constitutionally inadequate given the factual circumstances of the case.” United States v. 8 50.50 Acres of Land, 931 F.2d 1349, 1355 (9th Cir. 1991). In that instance, the court must determine 9 an “appropriate rate to be used,” which is measured by what a reasonably prudent investor would 10 receive when “investing funds so as to produce a reasonable return while maintaining safety of 11 principal.” Id. (quoting United States v. 429.59 Acres of Land, 612 F.2d 459 (9th Cir. 1980). An 12 appropriate rate would include “a diverse group of securities, including Treasury bills.” Id. 13 The Port argues the DT Act rate does not apply when a significant amount of time has lapsed 14 between the time of taking and the payment of just compensation. The cases cited by the Port, 15 however, are inverse condemnation cases rather than direct taking cases, and do not require deviation 16 from the DT Act rate simply because of the lapse of time. See Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist. 17 v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 624 (2004); Ark. Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 594 18 (2009). 19 The Port further argues that a reasonably prudent investor would not, over five years, invest 20 in the manner contemplated by the DT Act rate. In other words, a reasonably prudent investor would 21 not purchase a 1-year Treasury Bill and, upon expiration of that note, purchase another 1-year Treasury 22 Bill and continue in that manner for five years. (See Browne Decl. ¶ 11.) Rather, a reasonably prudent 23 investor would invest in a variety of securities having varying maturity dates in order to obtain higher 24 interest rates. (Id. at ¶¶ 11-12.) The Port seeks to use either the Barclays U.S. Government: 25 Intermediate Index or the Barclays Intermediate Government/Credit Index as the appropriate 26 benchmark for a prudent investor standard. 27 The two indices proposed by the Port would result in a higher interest payment to the Port than 28 would the DT Act rate. Nevertheless, the DT Act rate is not constitutionally inadequate under the -2- 08CV0563 1 circumstances of this case. The DT Act provides for variable interest rates, which reflect the differing 2 economic conditions over the last several years. While the Port’s proposed indices outpace the DT 3 Act rate as a whole, there are times throughout the period in which the DT Act rate produced higher 4 returns than the proposed indices. (See U.S. Opp’n Br. at 5.) Accordingly, the Court does not find the 5 DT Act rate unreasonable or constitutionally inadequate. The parties shall submit a proposed Final 6 Judgment, in accordance with this Order, on or before August 20, 2010. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 5, 2010 9 10 11 HON. DANA M. SABRAW United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- 08CV0563
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
