The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ALL SQUARE LOGISTICS, LLC, ) Case No. 5:24-cv-1721
)
Plaintiff, ) Judge J. Philip Calabrese
)
v. ) Magistrate Judge
) Jennifer Dowdell Armstrong
JUST FUNKY, LLC, )
)
Defendant. )
)
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff All Square Logistics, LLC brought a breach of contract claim against
Defendant Just Funky, LLC. Plaintiff perfected service. When Defendant failed to
answer, appear, or otherwise defend, the Clerk entered default under Rule 55(a) on
November 25, 2024. Then, under Rule 55(b)(1), Plaintiff moved for a default
judgment in a sum certain. (ECF No. 8.) For the reasons that follow, the Court
GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the motion and AWARDS Plaintiff
damages in the amount of Five Hundred Forty Thousand Three Hundred
Thirty-Eight Dollars and Eighty Cents ($540,338.80), plus contractual interest at the
rate of 3.5% per month on all past due amounts, plus post-judgment interest at the
applicable statutory rate from the date of this Order until the entire judgment is
satisfied.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Because Defendant has failed to answer, move, or otherwise defend against
Plaintiffs’ complaint and the Clerk previously entered default, the Court accepts the
allegations of the complaint as admitted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6).
All Square Logistics is a logistics company and freight broker that arranges
and manages the importation of goods for its clients by intermodal freight transport
to the United States. (ECF No. 1, ¶ 1, PageID #1.) Just Funky is a manufacturer
and seller of retail goods and imports these goods from foreign countries to the United
States. (Id., ¶ 2, PageID #1.) Beginning in the summer of 2023, Just Funky
contracted with All Square to arrange and manage the importation of shipments of
Just Funky’s goods from foreign countries to the United States. (Id., ¶ 6, PageID #2.)
Under the parties’ contract, the shipments were subject to All Square’s bill of lading,
as well as its terms and conditions. (Id., ¶¶ 7–10, PageID #2–3.)
Over the contractual term, All Square paid freight charges, storage charges,
customs brokerage charges, customs duties, certain import taxes, drayage and
trucking charges, and other charges to third parties on behalf of Just Funky. (Id.,
¶ 11, PageID #3.) The bill of lading and terms and conditions specify that Just Funky
is liable to All Square for these accrued charges. (Id.)
All Square delivered Just Funky’s shipments. (Id., ¶ 12, PageID #3.) After
delivery of each shipment, All Square issued an invoice to Just Funky covering the
charges incurred in connection with the shipment. (Id., ¶¶ 11–12, PageID #3.) Just
Funky repeatedly failed to forward payment to cover the invoices. (Id., ¶ 12, PageID
#3.) On September 4, 2024, All Square sent Just Funky a demand letter for
immediate payment of the invoices in the amount of not less than $540,338.80. (Id.,
¶ 15, PageID #3.) Despite All Square’s demand, Just Funky still has not paid the
invoices. (Id., ¶ 16, PageID #4.)
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On October 3, 2024, All Square sued Just Funky for breach of contract and, in
the alternative, quantum meruit. (Id., ¶¶ 17–29, PageID #4–5.) On October 24, 2024,
Plaintiff perfected service. (ECF No. 4; ECF No. 5.) On November 25, 2024, Plaintiff
filed a request for entry of default against Defendant, and the Court ordered the Clerk
to enter default of Defendant on the same day. (ECF No. 6; ECF No. 7.) In addition
to seeking the amount due and owing under the contract, Plaintiff seeks its attorneys’
fees under the terms of the bill of lading. (ECF No. 8, PageID #180.)
ANALYSIS
Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the entry of default
and default judgment. “When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief
is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit
or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). On
November 25, 2024, the Clerk entered default against Defendant, who never
answered or appeared. (ECF No. 7.)
After entry of default under Rule 55(a), the party seeking relief may apply for
a default judgment under Rule 55(b). Plaintiff seeks default judgment under Rule
55(b)(1) for a sum certain in the amount of Five Hundred Forty Thousand Three
Hundred Thirty-Eight Dollars and Eighty Cents ($540,338.80), plus contractual
interest at the rate of 3.5% per month on all past due amounts, plus attorneys’ fees
as provided under the applicable bill of lading, plus post-judgment interest. (ECF
No. 8. ¶ 7, PageID #180.) Under Rule 55(b)(1), the Clerk may enter a default
judgment “for a sum certain or a sum that can be made certain by
computation . . . with an affidavit showing the amount due.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1).
“The Clerk of Court may enter a default judgment under Rule 55(b)(1) only if
the plaintiff's entire complaint and all of the plaintiff's claims are for a sum certain
or a sum that can be made certain by computation.” National Auto Grp., Inc. v. Van
Devere, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-2543, 2021 WL 1857143, at *3 (N.D. Ohio May 10, 2021)
(quoting Van Zeeland Oil Co. v. Lawrence Agency, Inc., No. 2:09-cv-150, 2009 WL
10678619, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Sept. 28, 2009)). “A claim for damages under Rule
55(b)(1) ‘is not a sum certain unless there is no doubt as to the amount to which a
plaintiff is entitled as a result of the defendant's default.’” Id. at *2 (quoting Highway
Com. Servs., Inc. v. Zitis, No. 2:07-cv-1252, 2008 WL 4115512, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Aug.
28, 2008)).
An award for attorney fees must be reasonable and not excessive, as
determined by the Court’s lodestar calculation. BMO Harris Bank, N.A. v. Stacy,
No. 5:22-cv-613, 2024 WL 4591288, at *5 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 28, 2024). Therefore,
Plaintiff’s default judgment claim necessarily fails under Rule 55(b)(1) “because what
constitutes a reasonable fee must be determined by the Court and is ‘not a claim for
a sum certain or a sum that can be made certain by computation that falls under Rule
55(b)(1) for purposes of the Clerk of Court entering a default judgment.’” National
Auto Grp., 2021 WL 1857143, at *2 (quoting Van Zeeland Oil, 2009 WL 10678619, at
*1).
Because all of Plaintiff’s claims cannot be resolved under Rule 55(b)(1), the
Court decides Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment under Rule 55(b)(2). National
Auto Grp., 2021 WL 1857143, at *3 (citations omitted). Under Rule 55(b)(2), the entry
of default establishes only a defendant’s liability for the well-pleaded allegations of
the complaint; a plaintiff must still prove the extent of damages. Antoine v. Atlas
Turner, Inc., 66 F.3d 105, 110 (6th Cir. 1995) (citing Fehlhaber v. Fehlhaber, 681 F.2d
1015, 1026 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc); Kelley v. Carr, 567 F. Supp. 831, 841 (W.D. Mich.
1983)).
“An allegation—other than one relating to the amount of damages—is
admitted if a responsive pleading is required and the allegation is not denied.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6). To establish a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff must prove:
“(1) the existence of a contract, (2) performance by the plaintiff, (3) breach by the
defendant, and (4) damages or loss resulting from the breach.” In re Fifth Third Early
Access Cash Advance Litig., 925 F.3d 265, 276 (6th Cir. 2019) (quoting Claris, Ltd. v.
Hotel Dev. Servs., LLC, 2018-Ohio-2602, 104 N.E.3d 1076, ¶ 28 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018)).
Plaintiff’s factual allegations, taken as admitted, establish the necessary elements to
prove Defendant’s liability for breach of contract. Plaintiff’s complaint establishes
that (1) the parties had a valid and enforceable contract, (2) Plaintiff performed its
obligations “by timely arranging for the transportation and delivery of the Shipments
at Defendant’s request,” (3) Defendant breached the contract “by failing to pay the
Invoices when due,” and (4) Defendant’s breach “caused damage to Plaintiff.” (ECF
No. 1, ¶¶ 17–22, PageID #4.) Therefore, the Court has no occasion to consider
Plaintiff’s alternative claim of quantum meruit.
Plaintiff still bears the burden of establishing the extent of damages. Antoine,
66 F.3d at 110 (citing Fehlhaber, 681 F.2d at 1026; Kelley, 567 F. Supp. at 841). First,
Plaintiff requests damages in the amount of Five Hundred Forty Thousand Three
Hundred Thirty-Eight Dollars and Eighty Cents ($540,338.80) in overdue invoices,
plus contractual interest at the rate of 3.5% per month on all past due amounts.
Based on the affidavit of Sunil Chopra (ECF No. 8-1), the bill of lading (ECF No. 8-2),
the invoices that Plaintiff sent to Defendant (ECF No. 8-3), and the demand letter
(ECF No. 8-4), Plaintiff has established that it is entitled to damages in the amount
of Five Hundred Forty Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-Eight Dollars and Eighty
Cents ($540,338.80), plus contractual interest at the rate of 3.5% per month on all
past due amounts.
Next, Plaintiff requests an award of attorneys’ fees for which the applicable
bill of lading provides. Pursuant to Section 14 of the Court’s Standing Order on Civil
Procedures, “[i]f requesting attorneys’ fees or costs in connection with a motion for
default judgment,” counsel must provide “proper support for such a request, including
sufficient lodestar information. Failure to do so will result in denial of any such
request.” Counsel for Plaintiff provided no such support. The affidavit of Sunil
Chopra, the Chief Executive Officer of All Square, provides that Section 23 of
Plaintiff’s bill of lading entitles it to the recovery of attorneys’ fees. (ECF No. 8-1, ¶ 9,
PageID #184.) But that section does not establish support for a specific amount of
attorneys’ fees. Nor does Plaintiff otherwise supply any lodestar or other information
from which the Court could make and support an award for attorneys’ fees. For these
reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees.
Finally, Plaintiff requests an award of post-judgment interest. 28 U.SC.
§ 1961(a) provides that “[i]nterest shall be allowed on any money judgment in a civil
case recovered in a district court.” “The district court has no discretion to deny post-
judgment interest, as it is mandatory.” CAPSA Sols., LLC v. Concord Healthcare
Grp., LLC, No. 2:18-cv-594, 2019 WL 4894038, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 4, 2019) (citing
Caffey v. UNUM Life Ins. Co., 302 F.3d 576, 586 (6th Cir. 2002)). Section 1961(a)
specifies that “such 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). Therefore,
Plaintiff is entitled to post-judgment interest at the applicable statutory rate from
the date of this Order until the entire judgment is satisfied.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN
PART Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment. (ECF No. 8.) Accordingly, the Court
AWARDS Plaintiff damages in the amount of Five Hundred Forty Thousand Three
Hundred Thirty-Eight Dollars and Eighty Cents ($540,338.80), plus contractual
interest at the rate of 3.5% per month on all past due amounts, plus post-judgment
interest at the applicable statutory rate from the date of this Order until the entire
judgment is satisfied.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 10, 2025
J. Philip Calabrese
United States District Judge
Northern District of Ohio