Brown v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. CA1/4

Filed 10/2/20 Brown v. Cal. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

MARK A. BROWN, Plaintiff and Appellant, A155388 v. CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT (City & County of San Francisco INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD et al., Super. Ct. No. CPF-12-512499) Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiff Mark Brown challenges for the second time on appeal the calculation of interest to which he is entitled on his award for wrongfully withheld unemployment insurance benefits. Defendants Employment Development Department (the department) and the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board contend that all issues regarding the calculation of interest were finally resolved in this court’s prior decision in Brown v. California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 1107 (Brown). We agree that our prior decision determined all relevant issues pertaining to the calculation of interest. Accordingly, we shall affirm the order denying Brown’s motion which sought to compel calculation of interest in a manner different from previously directed by this court. Background In 2013, Brown successfully petitioned for a peremptory writ of administrative mandate directing defendants to “immediately” pay Brown “the unemployment insurance benefits that were withheld in the administrative proceedings in this matter plus interest on those benefits.” The trial court directed the parties to “meet and confer as to the

1

amount of the award and the method of compliance” and retained jurisdiction to “fully resolve this matter.” By April 2014, the department had paid Brown more than $28,000 in benefits, including 10 percent interest on each withheld payment. In October 2014, Brown filed a motion to enforce the writ claiming, among other things, that the department had underpaid interest by “refus[ing] to apply the rule that payments apply first to accrued interest, and interest continues to run on the resulting balance.” In response, defendants argued that the department had actually overpaid interest. Defendants explained, “For judgments against the state, interest is not due for 180 days and is only payable at the rate of 7 percent. (Gov. Code, § 965.5, subds. (a) & (c).)[1] As soon as the court issued the writ and [the department] began paying principal, it paid interest, as well. [The department] did not take advantage of its right to wait 180 days to pay interest, and has paid interest at 10 percent rather than 7 percent, and has therefore overpaid its interest obligation.” The trial court agreed that interest accrued at only 7 percent, so that the EDD had “overpaid, rather than underpaid, interest due” Brown. The trial court directed that the overpayment be subtracted from any outstanding payments but that Brown should not be required to repay any of the overpaid interest. Brown timely appealed the enforcement order. In our prior decision, this court reversed the interest portion of the enforcement order and remanded for recalculation. We held that under Civil Code section 3289, subdivision (b), Brown was entitled to prejudgment interest at the rate of 10 percent from the time the payments became due until the writ was entered in May 2013. (Brown, supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1116-1118.) Thereafter, Brown was entitled to postjudgment interest at the rate of 7 percent beginning 180 days after entry of the writ. (Id. at p. 1120, citing § 965.5, subd. (c) [“Interest on the amount of a judgment or settlement for the payment of moneys against the state shall commence to accrue 180 days from the date of