The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
CAPSA SOLUTIONS, LLC., d.b.a.
CAPSA HEALTHCARE,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:18-cv-594
v.
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura
CONCORD HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC.,
d.b.a. CONCORD HEALTHCARE GROUP,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This is an action to recover money on an account stated under Ohio common law,
prejudgment interest under Ohio Revised Code § 1343.03(A), and postjudgment interest under
28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). Plaintiff, Capsa Solutions, LLC., d.b.a. Capsa Healthcare, asserts that
Defendant, Concord Healthcare Group, LLC., d.b.a. Concord Healthcare Group, owes a sum of
$164,875.19 exclusive of interest, representing Defendant’s failure to pay for goods sold and
delivered by Plaintiff. This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Default
Judgment. (ECF No. 31.) The motion is fully briefed and ripe for disposition. For the following
reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED, and Defendant is ORDERED
to pay $164,875.19, plus prejudgment and postjudgment interest according to the applicable
statutory rates.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is a foreign limited liability company with its principal place of business in
Canal Winchester, Ohio. (Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1.) Defendant is a New Jersey limited liability
company based in Lakewood, New Jersey. (Id. ¶ 2.) From May to July 2016, Plaintiff sold and
delivered healthcare products to Defendant. (Id. ¶ 5.) The statement of account for these sales
amounts to $164,875.19, with the parties’ last transaction occurring on July 13, 2016. (ECF No.
1-1.) After Defendant’s failure to pay the balance owed for nearly two years, Plaintiff
commenced this action on June 15, 2018. (Compl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 1.) The Complaint sets forth
Plaintiff’s claims for recovery of the amount past due on the account and all related costs and
interest. (Id. ¶ 12.) Defendant retained Monica L. Narvaez as counsel and filed an Answer on
September 13, 2018. (ECF No. 11.) Approximately seven months later, Narvaez filed a motion
to withdraw as counsel for Defendant. (ECF No. 25.) When granting the motion to withdraw,
this Court ordered Defendant to retain a trial attorney within thirty days, pursuant to Southern
District of Ohio Civil Rule 83.4. (ECF No. 26.) On May 17, 2019, Plaintiff moved for
Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 27.) Defendant did not respond to this Motion and failed to
comply with this Court’s ensuing Order to Show Cause. (Mot. for Default J. ¶ 6, ECF No. 31.)
As a result, this Court directed the Clerk to enter Default Judgment against Defendant and
ordered Plaintiff to move for Default Judgment within thirty days of the entry. (Id. ¶ 7.) On July
23, 2019, Plaintiff filed the present Motion for Default Judgment. (Id.)
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 provides that “when a party against whom a judgment
for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and the failure is shown
by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a).
Subsequently, unless a claim is for a sum certain or a sum that can be made certain by
computation, plaintiff “must apply to the court for a default judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b).
“Even if a default has been entered against a party, it remains for the court to consider whether
the unchallenged facts constitute a legitimate cause of action, since a party in default does not
admit mere conclusions of law.” Anderson v. Johnson, No. 98-1931, 1999 WL 1023753, at * 2
(6th Cir. Nov. 4, 1999) (citing Quirindongo Pacheco v. Rolon Morales, 953 F.2d 15, 16 (1st Cir.
1992)). In considering a motion for default judgment, all “factual allegations of the complaint,
except those related to the amount of damages, will be taken as true.” Harris v. Cooley, No.
1:17-CV-540, 2019 WL 1573260, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 11, 2019). If the defaulting party is
found liable for the cause of action, that “does not resolve issues relating to damages.” Antione
v. Atlas Tucker, Inc. 66 F.3d 105, 111 (6th Cir. 1995). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
55, if the amount of damages is unclear “the court may conduct hearings or make referrals” in
order to “determine the amount of damages.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Account Stated Under Ohio Law Claim
Plaintiff first asserts that Defendant violated Ohio common law by failing to pay the sum
of an account stated. In Ohio, a prima facie case to recover money on an account stated requires
the following elements: (1) a showing that an account in the name of the charged party exists;
(2) a starting balance of zero or another provable sum; (3) items listed with accompanying dates
and charges; and (4) summarization of the running balance verifying the amount claimed to be
owed. Citibank, NA v. Abrahamson, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2016 AP 110055, 2017-Ohio-
5566, ¶ 21 (citing Carasalina, L.L.C. v. Smith Philips & Assocs., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 13AP-
1027, 2014-Ohio-2423, ¶ 20; Great Seneca Fin. v. Felty, 170 Ohio App.3d 737, 2006-Ohio-
6618, 869 N.E.2d 30, ¶ 6).
Here, Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that Defendant owes $164,875.19 on an account stated.
(Compl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff’s Exhibit A (“Statement of Account”) satisfies the
evidentiary burden to establish a prima facie case for recovery of an account stated. (See ECF
No. 1-1.) The Statement of Account denotes Defendant’s name and business address. (Id.) The
statement begins with a sum of $446.37 on July 13, 2016, representing the first transaction in the
disputed account. (Id.) Each item in the statement is accompanied by an invoice date, invoice
number, charge, and payment made towards the balance owed. (Id.) The statement ends by
summarizing the running balance as $164,875.19 and correctly reflects the total charges to
Defendant. (Id.) Defendant has not paid the outstanding balance and offers no contrary
evidence. (Compl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 1; Mot. for Default J. ¶ 6, ECF No. 31.) Accepting Plaintiff’s
allegations of liability as true, each element under Ohio law to recover money on an account
stated is met. Further, Plaintiff’s account documentation is sufficient evidence to prove the
amount of damages. Accordingly, Default Judgment is GRANTED for Plaintiff’s first claim of
relief and Defendant is ORDERED to pay Plaintiff $164,875.19.
B. Prejudgment Interest Claim
Next, Plaintiff requests prejudgment interest, at an annual rate of 5.0%, running from July
13, 2016, until the date of the entry of judgment. (Mot. for Default J. ¶ 10, ECF No. 31.) The
purpose of prejudgment interest is to make the injured party whole by accounting for the delay in
compensation. Osborn v. Griffin, 865 F.3d 417, 458 (6th Cir. 2017) (citing Funkhouser v. J.B.
Preston Co., 290 U.S. 163, 168 (1933)). Unlike postjudgment interest, which is administered
according to 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a), there is no comparable federal statute governing prejudgment
interest. City of Milwaukee v. Cement Div., Nat. Gypsum Co., 515 U.S. 189, 194 (1995).
Instead, state law determines prejudgment interest. Estate of Riddle ex. rel. Riddle v. S. Farm
Bureau Life Ins. Co., 421 F.3d 400, 409 (6th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). In Ohio,
prejudgment interest is governed by Ohio Revised Code § 1343.03, which provides, in pertinent
part, that “when money becomes due and payable upon . . . any book account . . . the creditor is
entitled to interest at a rate per annum determined pursuant to section 5703.47 of the Revised
Code, unless a written contract provides a different rate of interest . . . .” Ohio Rev. Code
§ 1343.03(A). Section 5703.47 requires that the federal short-term rate, rounded to the nearest
whole number, plus three percent, is used to determine prejudgment interest that accrues during
the relevant calendar year. Ohio Rev. Code § 5703.47. The applicable interest rate for 2016,
when Plaintiff’s claim accrued, is 3.0%. Annual Certified Interest Rates, Ohio Dep’t. of
Taxation, https://www.tax.ohio.gov/ohio_individual/individual/interest_rates.aspx.
Consequently, Defendant is ORDERED to pay Plaintiff prejudgment interest at the applicable
statutory rate of 3.0% per annum on the $164,875.19 award from July 13, 2016, until the date of
this Order.
C. Postjudgment Interest Claim
Lastly, Plaintiff contends it is entitled to postjudgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1961(a). The purpose of postjudgment interest is to compensate the prevailing plaintiff for the
time-value of money lost between the occurrence of damages and the defendant’s payment at a
later date. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827, 835-36 (1990). 28
U.S.C. § 1961(a) requires postjudgment interest to be paid on money awarded by districts courts
in civil actions. Broad Street Energy Co. v. Endeavor Ohio LLC, No. 2:12-CV-711, 2014 WL
12657033 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 14, 2014) at *4 (citing O’Sullivan Corp. v. Duro-Last, Inc., 7 F.
App’x 509, 519 (6th Cir. 2001)). The district court has no discretion to deny postjudgment
interest, as it is mandatory. Caffey v. Unum Life Ins. Co., 302 F .3d 576, 586 (6th Cir. 2002). 28
U.S.C. § 1961(a) further dictates that, “[s]uch interest shall be calculated from the date of the
entry of the judgment at a rate equal to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury
yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar
week preceding the date of the judgment.”
Accordingly, Defendant is ORDERED to pay postjudgment interest at the applicable
statutory rate from the date of this Order until the judgment is satisified.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED.
Defendant is ORDERED to pay Plaintiff $164,875.19 along with prejudgment and
postjudgment interest at the applicable statutory rates as set forth above. The Clerk shall enter
judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant accordingly. The Clerk shall remove ECF
No. 31 from the Court’s pending motions list.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura
CHELSEY M. VASCURA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE