George v. Double–D Foods, Inc., 155 Cal.App.3d 36, 47 (1984). Thus, Scottsdale can rely on California Civil Code § 3289 for purposes of determining the prejudgment interest rate. Here, there is no provision in the contract specifying the interest rate per annum in the event Scottsdale were to reserve rights and seek reimbursement from Defendants.

Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 234 Cal.App.3d 1154 (1991); Esgro Central, Inc. v. General Ins. Co., 20 Cal.App.3d 1054 (1971); and Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Sequoia Ins. Co., 211 Cal.App.3d 1285 (1989) also do not support Scottsdale’s position because either breach of contract was alleged, or the losing party failed to raise California Civil Code § 3289’s breach requirement. B. The Allocation Provision in the Policy Trumps the Right to Reimbursement Under Blue Ridge Scottsdale could not rely on Blue Ridge’s quasi-contractual right to seek reimbursement of a settlement payment because of the Policy’s Allocation Provision.

Under California law, “[a]ny legal rate of interest stipulated by a contract remains chargeable after a breach thereof, as before, until the contract is superseded by a verdict or other new obligation.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3289(a); see, e.g., RD Legal Funding, LLC v. Erwin & Balingit, LLP, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2137, *4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011).

Id, ¶ 16(h). Plaintiffs shall be entitled to interest on the unpaid balance, at the legal rate specified in California Civil Code § 3289(b), as well as attorneys’ fees and costs necessary to enforce the Settlement and obtain the balanced owed under the Settlement. Id.

Moreover, Plaintiffs’ February 16, 2010 demand letter makes clear that the $1.9 million is simply a claim for prejudgment interest under California Civil Code Section 3289(b). RJN Exh.

That Defendants be ordered to show cause why they should not be enjoined and ordered to comply the applicable California Industrial Welfare Commission wageorders related to payment of employment compensation and record keeping for Defendants’ employees whoare engaged in work without a meal or break period and for more than 10 hours per day; 6. Forrestitution to Plaintiffs and othersimilarly affected members ofthe general public (and disgorgement from Defendants) ofall funds unlawfully acquired by Defendants by meansofany acts or practices declared bythis Court to be violative of the California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, State Prevailing Wage Lawsfor Public Works, Califomia Business and Professions Code 17200et seq.; 7. For punitive and exemplary damages; ~~Forpre-judgmentpost-judgment interest as allowedbyCalifornia~~] Labor Codesections 218.6 and 1194 and California Civil Code sections 3287(b) and 3289; . 9. For reasonable attorney’s fees, expenses and costs as provided by California Labor Codesections 218.5, 1194(a), subsection 20 ofthe applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Orders, and California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5; 10. Penalties pursuant to California Labor Codesection 203. 11. An order requiring Defendants to show cause, if any they have, why they should not be enjoined from failing to pay their “Landscapers”all wages due and owing under California law; 12.