Mid Valley Agricultural Serv. v. McCarty
Filed 7/14/06 Mid Valley Agricultural Serv. v. McCarty CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(San Joaquin)
----
| MID VALLEY AGRICULTURAL SERVICES, INC. et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. PATRICK N. MCCARTY et al., Defendants and Respondents. | C048499
(Super. Ct. No. CV013489)
|
Plaintiffs sold defendants goods for which defendants did not pay. Following a nonjury trial, the trial court awarded judgment to plaintiffs. The court awarded prejudgment interest as called for by the invoices, but it refused to award additional prejudgment interest under Civil Code section 3287. It also issued a nunc pro tunc judgment after a notice of appeal had been filed, holding the defendants were not jointly and severally liable, contrary to the court's earlier judgment. We conclude the nunc pro tunc judgment was invalid, but we also conclude the court did not err in refusing to award statutory prejudgment interest.
FACTS
Plaintiffs Mid Valley Agricultural Services, Inc. and BG Agri Sales & Service brought this action against defendant Patrick McCarty and nine business entities created by McCarty to recover the cost of goods and services sold by plaintiffs to defendants between 1997 and 2001. Each invoice and delivery ticket documenting the sale contained a provision imposing an uncompounded service charge of 2 percent per month on any balance not paid within 30 days of the sale.
The complaint alleged all of the entity defendants were the alter ego of McCarty. This issue was bifurcated and tried to the court first in early 2003. On April 30, 2003, the court issued a four-page Statement of Decision and determined all the defendants were â€
