Page:Olcott v. Delaware Flood Co.pdf/18

 this claim of error also is without merit.

V.

Finally, Defendants challenge the district court's prejudgment interest award. This court reviews the district court's decision to award prejudgment interest for an abuse of discretion and will reverse only if we are left with a definite conviction that the court clearly erred in its judgment. , 151 F.3d 1275, 1288 (10th Cir. 1998).

The district court entered default judgment on Plaintiff's pendant state law claims. Where state law claims are before a federal court on supplemental jurisdiction, state law governs the court's award of prejudgment interest. , 276 F.3d 222, 228 (6th Cir. 2002). The district court applied Oklahoma state law. But, as we clarified in, 76 F.3d at 1550, the relevant law in this case is the law of the transferor court. Plaintiff originally filed this action in the District of New Jersey and the pendant state claims alleged violations of New Jersey law. Accordingly, New Jersey law, rather than Oklahoma law, governs.

Under New Jersey law, a court may award prejudgment interest in its discretion, and the court's exercise of its discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless it represents "a manifest denial of justice." ,

-18-