Cardinal Health 108, LLC v. HemaCare Plus, Inc.
Order granting, as set out, 60 MOTION for Entry of Judgment under Rule 58(a) . Signed by Chief Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 5/15/2017. (cmj)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
CARDINAL HEALTH 108, LLC,
HEMACARE PLUS, INC.,
CIVIL ACTION 16-00079-KD-M
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Cardinal Health 108, LLC (Plaintiff)’s motion
for entry of a Rule 58 final judgment, which includes a request for an additional award of
$163,122.90 in prejudgment interest. (Doc. 60).
On January 11, 2017, this Court issued an order ruling that: “Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Docs. 20, 22) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth
supra in the total amount of $688,920.62 comprised of: $667,565.69 (plus interest accruing at the
contractual rate) on Cardinal’s claims for breach of contract, account stated and open account;
$20,867.50 in attorney’s fees; and $487.43 in costs.”1 (Doc. 49).
On that date, Plaintiff was
terminated as a party to this case and only Third-Party Plaintiff Hemacare Plus, Inc.’s claims
against Third-Party Defendant Janis Spratlin remained.
On May 9, 2017, on motion, this Court
dismissed Third-Party Plaintiff Hemacare Plus, Inc.’s claims against Third-Party Defendant Janis
As all the claims in this case were resolved, the Clerk closed the case.
1 Plaintiff asserted that the contractual sum due was $667,565.69 as of December 31, 2015.
Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of a Rule 58 final judgment in its favor in the
amount of $852,043.52 (principal $667,565.69, prejudgment interest $163,122.90, attorneys’
fees $20,867.50, and costs $487.43).
In so doing, Plaintiff has added $163,122.90
to the Court’s January 2017 award, citing the contractual interest rate of 1.5% per month set forth
in Doc. 1-2, and asserting that as of “May 9, 2017, 16 months and 9 days have passed…[since
the December 31, 2015 balance due]….Sixteen months at 1.5% monthly interest on $667,565.69
equals $160,215.76. Nine additional days equals $2,907.14, which brings the grand interest total
to $163,122.90.” (Doc. 60 at 1 at note 2).
As such, Plaintiff sought interest running from the
date the balance was due, December 31, 2015, through the date that Hemacare’s claims against
Spratlin were dismissed, May 9, 2017.
While this Court found the award of prejudgment interest appropriate in its January 2017
ruling, the 1.5 % contractual interest rate, under Tennessee law (which governs), applies to
pre-judgment interest. As set forth in Grubb & Ellis/Centennial, Inc. v. Gaedeke Holdings, Ltd.,
217 Fed. Appx. 390 (6th Cir. 2007), this means:
…Under Tennessee Code Annotated section 47–14–109(b)….“[l]iquidated and settled
accounts, signed by the debtor, shall bear interest from the time they become due.” Here,
the liquidation requirement is satisfied because “the amount of the debt is certain or can
be made certain by mere computation.” Performance Sys., Inc. v. First Amer. Nat'l Bank,
554 S.W.2d 616, 618–19 (Tenn.1977)….
This suggests that the contractual interest rate of 1.5% runs from the date it “become[s] due” to
the date that the amount the debt is certain or can be made certain.
The date the debt became
due is December 31, 2015, and the date the debt was made certain is the date of the Court’s
ruling on Plaintiff’s summary judgment, January 11, 2017, as that ruling resolved all of
Plaintiff’s claims (denying in part and granting in part) and awarded a sum certain in its favor.
Thus, the 1.5% contractual interest runs from December 31, 2015 through January 11, 2017 -not from December 31, 2015 through May 9, 2017.
Plaintiff now concedes it is only due 1.5% contractual interest from December 31, 2015 January 11, 2017 (12 months and 11 days) and withdraws its prior position that interest runs until
May 9, 2017.
Plaintiff thus amends its request to now seek an award totaling
$812,635.61 (principal $667,565.69, prejudgment interest $123,714.99, attorneys’ fees
$20,867.50, and costs $487.43).
amount is $123,714.99.
As such, the 1.5% contractual prejudgment interest
The Court finds such proper under the applicable law and contract
Plaintiff moves now pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for entry
of final judgment in its favor.
The motion is GRANTED.
DONE and ORDERED this the 15th day of May 2017.
/s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?