aff'd, 710 F.3d 57 (2d Cir.2013). However, the judgment entered on April 25, 2012 provided for “prejudgment interest” on the “Underfunding damages award of $832,945” as detailed in the October 2011 order. In this regard, the judgment failed to reflect the amount of prejudgment interest. The Plaintiffs now seek imposition of prejudgment interest in the amount of $42,564.48 against all the Defendants, jointly and severally. The cases have articulated two circumstances that preclude a Rule 60(a) correction to include prejudgment interest: (1) where the claimant has failed to request prejudgment interest at some time prior to filing the Rule 60(a) motion; or (2) if a finding of fact is required in order to determine the dates from which the interest should run. Dudley, 313 F.3d at 666 (<HOLDING>); Paddington Partners v. Bouchard, 34 F.3d
holding that rule 60a did not authorize the district court to change the rate of interest in its initial order holding that rule 60a is the proper vehicle for correcting a judgment in order to provide for an award of prejudgment interest where among other things governing law would make the interest award automatic or the district court clearly intended to make the interest award in its prior order holding that the state circuit court did not have the authority to award prejudgment interest for matters occurring prior to arbitration award holding that award and rate of prejudgment interest are within trial courts discretion holding that where a partys motion seeking an amended judgment to include an award of prejudgment interest did not invoke a specific federal rule of civil procedure the district court correctly construed it as a motion under rule 60a since the amended judgment did not affect substantive rights but merely corrected a judicial oversight namely the district courts failure to include the monetary award in the original judgment