The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI
FIRST FINANCIAL BANK, : Case No. 1:23-cv-809
Plaintiff, Judge Matthew W. McFarland
v.
TEKMOVIL, LLC,
Defendant.
ORDER AND OPINION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff First Financial Bank’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 23). Defendant Tekmovil, LLC, did not file a response in
opposition and the time to do so has passed. Thus, this matter is ripe for the Court's
review. For the reasons below, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 23) is
GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff First Financial Bank is a chartered bank with its principal place of business
located in Ohio. (Compl., Doc. 1, { 1.) Plaintiff maintains a division that specializes in
foreign currency advisory services. (Id. at { 6.) On June 16, 2020, Plaintiff and Defendant
Tekmovil, LLC, a Florida based company, entered into an agreement in which Plaintiff
would execute currency exchange transactions for Defendant. (Id. at 7 2, 7, 8; see
Agreement, Doc. 1-1.) Pursuant to the agreement, Plaintiff executed several transactions
at Defendant's request. (Id. at { 8.) Defendant, however, did not satisfy its obligations
under the agreement when it failed to pay Plaintiff for its services. (Id. at {| 9.) On October
5, 2023, Plaintiff provided Defendant with a notice of default. (Id. at § 10.) Despite
Plaintiff's notice, Defendant has still not satisfied its obligation. (Id. at { 11.)
Plaintiff filed the Complaint on December 13, 2023, bringing one claim for breach
of contract. (Compl., Doc. 1). Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on October 31, 2024.
(Motion, Doc. 23.) After Defendant failed to file a response to Plaintiff's motion, Plaintiff
filed a Notice of Non-Opposition. (Notice, Doc. 24.)
LAW
When there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the district court shall grant summary judgment.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party has the burden to conclusively show that no
genuine issue of material fact exists. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,477 U.S. 317, 323
(1986); Lansing Dairy, Inc. v. Espy, 39 F.3d 1339, 1347 (6th Cir. 1994). If the moving party
meets that burden, then it becomes the nonmoving party’s responsibility to point to
specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
250 (1986). A court is under no obligation to search the record for genuine issues of
material fact. Betkerur v. Aultman Hosp. Ass’n, 78 F.3d 1079, 1087 (6th Cir. 1996).
Moreover, a “mere scintilla” of evidence in support of the nonmoving party’s
position is not enough to avoid summary judgment. Daniels v. Woodside, 396 F.3d 730, 734
(6th Cir. 2005). Rather, to preclude summary judgment, the nonmoving party must put
forward probative evidence on which a jury could reasonably reach a verdict in that
party’s favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52; Lansing Dairy, F.3d at 1347. If the
nonmoving party fails to make the necessary showing for an element on which it has the
burden of proof, then the moving party is entitled to summary judgment. Celotex, 477
US. at 323.
ANALYSIS
Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 23).
When reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must hold the moving
party to Rule 56’s burden and require the party to “show that there is no genuine issue
as to material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of
law.’” Guarino v. Brookfield Twp. Trs., 980 F.2d 339, 410 (6th Cir. 1992) (quoting Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(a)). Such requirement is not lowered even when the non-moving party fails to
respond. Id. This does not mean, however, that a court “will sua sponte comb the record”
to advocate for the non-moving party. Id. Instead, the Court may rely on the moving
party’s recitation of the evidence. Id.
Here, Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on its sole breach of contract claim
against Defendant. As this Court sits in diversity jurisdiction, Ohio law governs the
dispute. See Equitable Life Assur. Soc’y of the United States v. Poe, 143 F.3d 101, 1016 (6th Cir.
1998). “Under Ohio law, the elements of a breach of contract claim are: (1) the existence
of a contract; (2) performance by the plaintiff; (3) breach by the defendant; and (4) damage
or loss to the plaintiff as a result of the breach.” V&M Star Steel v. Centimark Corp., 678
F.3d 459, 465 (6th Cir. 2012). After reviewing the record, there is no material dispute of
fact as to any element of Plaintiff's claim.
Looking to the elements, the parties agree to the existence of their contract.
(Answer, Doc. 15, { 15; see Barreto Dep., Doc. 22, Pg. ID 294.) Defendant further admits
that Plaintiff performed its duties under the contract by executing currency transactions
as requested by Defendant. (Answer, Doc. 15, 8; see Areddy Aff., Doc. 23-2, § 5.) Next,
Defendant admits that it breached the agreement by failing to pay Plaintiff. (Answer, Doc.
15, 8; Interrogatory, Doc. 23-3, Pg. ID 535.) Last, Defendant admits to the existence of
damages, acknowledging that it still owes Plaintiff $4,612,972.00 under the contract.
(Interrogatory, Doc. 23-3, Pg. ID 535; Barreto Dep., Doc. 22, Pg. ID 317; Rojas Dep., Doc.
20, Pg. ID 103.) Thus, there is no material dispute as to any element of Plaintiff's claim.
Since Plaintiff has provided a well-supported motion for summary judgment,
Defendant must provide specific facts showing that there is a genuine dispute for trial.
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. Defendant, however, has failed to respond to and cannot “rely
on the hope” that the Court will disbelieve Plaintiff's motion. Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co.,
886 F.2d 1472, 1479 (6th Cir. 1989). Instead, Defendant must present affirmative evidence
to defeat Plaintiff's motion. Id. Since Defendant has presented no evidence, the Court
finds summary judgment proper. See Gunshy Thoroughbreds, LLC v. Geostar Corp., 2010
USS. Dist. LEXIS 159264, at *5-6 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 9, 2010) (granting summary judgment
when the defendant failed to provide evidence for or explain its defenses).
Plaintiff also requests that this Court award post-judgment interest. (Motion, Doc.
23, Pg. ID 488.) In diversity cases, federal law controls post-judgment interest. Estate of
Riddle v. S. Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., 421 F.3d 400, 409 (6th Cir. 2005). Under 28 U.S.C. §
1961(a) “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.” “The purpose of postjudgment interest is to compensate the
successful plaintiff for being deprived of compensation for the loss from the time between
the ascertainment of the damage and the payment by the defendant.” Kaiser Aluminum &
Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827, 835-36 (1990). The Court also “has no discretion to
deny any post-judgment interest because it is mandatory.” Id. Accordingly, Defendant is
ordered to pay Plaintiff post-judgment interest from the date of this order until the
judgment is satisfied.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS the following:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 23) is GRANTED;
2. Judgment is ENTERED in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $4,612,972.60, along
with post-judgment interest at the applicable statutory rate under 28 U.S.C. § 1961;
and
3. The case is TERMINATED from the Court's docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WR Wald
By: :
JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND