Exhibit 1 - Motion to Correct Final Award — Oto Analytics, LLC v. Benworth Capital Partners PR LLC (Dkt. 117.1)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico · No. 3:23-cv-01034-GMM · Doc. 117-1 · 2024-06-20 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

EXHIBIT 1
Case 3:23-cv-01034-GMM     Document 117-1     Filed 06/20/24     Page 1 of 4

JAMS ARBITRATION 
JAMS REF. NO. 1210038203 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BENWORTH’S MOTION TO CORRECT THE FINAL AWARD 
JAMS served the Final Award in favor of Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Oto Analytics, 
Inc. d/b/a Womply (“Womply”) on June 11, 2024. The Arbitrator awarded Womply “Finance 
Charges calculated at 10% per annum simple interest until paid, which as of May 31, 2024 are 
$25,387,670.50.” (Final Award at 73 (emphasis added).) As a matter of California law, Womply’s 
entitlement to finance charges ceased on the date the Final Award was made, May 30, 2024, (see 
id. at 2). The Final Award thus contains a computational error because it awards Womply an 
additional day of finance charges and purports to extend Womply’s entitlement to finance charges 
until the Final Award is paid. Accordingly, Respondent/Counter-Claimant Benworth Capital 
Partners, LLC (“Benworth”), pursuant to JAMS Rule 24(k), moves the Arbitrator to correct these 
computational errors in the Final Award.  
ARGUMENT 
Under California law, an “arbitration award” is “the contractual equivalent of a judgment” 
in favor of Womply. Britz, Inc. v. Alfa-Laval Food & Dairy Co., 34 Cal. App. 4th 1085, 1107 
(1995); see also In re Ter Bush, 273 B.R. 625, 628 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 2002) (collecting California 
Oto Analytics, Inc. d/b/a Womply, 
 
Claimant/Counter-Respondent, 
 
v. 
 
Benworth Capital Partners, LLC, 
 
Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 
_______________________________________/ 
Case 3:23-cv-01034-GMM     Document 117-1     Filed 06/20/24     Page 2 of 4

 
2 
cases supporting the proposition that “an unconfirmed arbitration award is viewed as the equivalent 
of a final judgment”). “The arbitration award itself resulted in a new and fixed liability.” Britz, 34 
Cal. App. 4th at 1107. Because an arbitration award establishes a new and fixed liability, California 
courts distinguish between pre-award interest and post-award, pre-judgment interest.  
For post-award, pre-judgment interest, the prevailing party is limited to recovering interest 
under Section 3287. See, e.g., id. at 1106-07 (explaining that Section 3287 governs the rate of 
prejudgment interest from the date the arbitrator renders his award); Pierotti v. Torian, 81 Cal. 
App. 4th 17, 27-28 (2000) (holding that post-award, pre-judgment interest is governed by section 
3287); Tenzera, Inc. v. Osterman, 205 Cal. App. 4th 16, 21 (2012) (“Section 3287 applies to 
arbitration awards.”); see also Glassman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 90 Cal. App. 5th 1281, 1325 
(2023) (“A successful party to an arbitration may be entitled to post-award, prejudgment interest 
under section 3287(a).”). In such cases, the “California rate for prejudgment interest is 7%.” See 
Riley v. QuantumScape Corp., 2023 WL 1475092, * 18-19 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2023) (awarding 
post-award, pre-judgment interest at rate of 7% in accordance with section 3287). Moreover, for 
arbitral awards subject to confirmation or vacatur in federal court under the Federal Arbitration 
Act, like the Final Award, the post-judgment interest rate is governed by federal law, “even if the 
arbitration award purported to grant post-judgment interest.” Fid. Fed. Bank, FSB v. Durga Ma 
Corp., 387 F.3d 1021, 1024 (9th Cir. 2004). 
 Here, the Final Award created a new and fixed liability as of the date it was rendered on 
May 30, 2024, extinguishing Womply’s entitlement to further finance charges under the parties’ 
agreements. While Womply may seek post-Final Award, pre-judgment interest, such interest is 
capped at 7%, not the 10% provided for in the Final Award. In addition, the Final Award purports 
Case 3:23-cv-01034-GMM     Document 117-1     Filed 06/20/24     Page 3 of 4

 
3 
to grant Womply post-judgment interest at the rate of 10% per annum by stating that, that rate 
applies to the Final award “until paid.” The Arbitrator had no authority to grant Womply post-
judgment interest, let alone at a rate of 10%. These computational errors warrant a correction of 
the Final Award under JAMS Rule 24(k). 
CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, Benworth requests that the Arbitrator correct the Final Award 
by replacing paragraph 5 on page 73 with the following: “Womply is awarded Finance Charges 
calculated at 10% per annum simple interest, which as of May 30, 2024 are $25,363,697.68.” 
 
Dated: June 18, 2024. 
 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
By: /s/ Jorge L. Piedra 
Jorge L. Piedra 
Dwayne A. Robinson 
Michael R. Lorigas 
KOZYAK TROPIN &  
THROCKMORTON LLP 
2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, 9th Floor 
Miami, FL 33134 
(305) 372-1800 
jpiedra@kttlaw.com 
 
Attorneys for Benworth Capital Partners, LLC 
 
Case 3:23-cv-01034-GMM     Document 117-1     Filed 06/20/24     Page 4 of 4

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.prd.175040.117.1.pdf

Size

144,412 bytes

SHA-256

ef37b99534e74489e414b545bc083811f844de5078d4fa166b9c1a3295e1d395

Our copy

gov.uscourts.prd.175040.117.1.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)