Pittman et al v. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., No. 2:2007cv03074 - Document 97 (E.D. La. 2008)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS - IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall submit a proposed judgment consistent with this Order and Reasons within seven (7) business days from the date that it is entered into the record by the Clerk of Court as stated herein. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 11/6/08.(cab) Modified on 11/6/2008 to edit document type (cab).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Pittman et al v. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. Doc. 97 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA DRS. MARCUS L. PITTMAN, III and MICHAEL N. PITTMAN CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 07-3074 THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, INC. SECTION “N” (2) ORDER AND REASONS Presently before the Court are the parties’ memoranda addressing Plaintiffs’ entitlement to pre-judgment interest and/or attorney’s fees (Rec. Doc. 88-89 and 95-96). Plaintiffs’ memoranda indicate that, at this time, they are not asserting a claim for attorney’s fees. Accordingly, this Order and Reasons will focus on Plaintiffs’ request for pre-judgment interest. Having reviewed the parties’ materials, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to receive pre-judgment interest on the repair award of $625,000 only for such time, if any, that they have not been awarded rent and the repairs have not been accomplished. The contrary would be true if Defendant had not remained in possession following the expiration date of the lease, or if Plaintiffs had lawfully evicted Defendant from the premises, and Defendant then had failed to timely and adequately satisfy its legal repair obligations. Neither of these alternative scenarios, however, occurred here. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover rent, as well as pre-judgment interest on rent that has not been paid, for the period of time that Defendant has remained in possession of Dockets.Justia.com the leased premises following the expiration date of the lease.1 The Court also finds it appropriate to clarify the specific amount of rent that Plaintiffs are entitled to actually recover from Defendant. Specifically, Plaintiffs are not owed more than one rent payment for each month. In other words, Plaintiffs are not entitled to actually receive a “double recovery” – three months of “lost rent” (Verdict Items 3 and 4) and “holdover rent” (Verdict Items 6 and 7) for those same three months. Rather, the payable rent award is limited to the 21 months for which the jury found Plaintiffs are entitled to “holdover rent” (Verdict Items 6 and 7).2 IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall submit a proposed judgment consistent with this Order and Reasons within seven (7) business days from the date that it is entered into the record by the Clerk of Court. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 6th day of November 2008. _________________________________ KURT D. ENGELHARDT United States District Judge 1 Pre-judgment interest will continue to accrue through and until a final judgment is entered in this matter. 2 The award of three months of “lost rent” would actually be paid only if Plaintiffs were not entitled to receive “holdover rent” for those same three months. 2
]]>
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.
