Cardinal Health 200 LLC v. Amosil Corp et al

Filing 41

OPINION AND ORDER: GRANTING 37 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Amosil Corp, by Plaintiff Cardinal Health 200 LLC, in the amount of $159,447.99, plus attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $15,620.45, plus prejudgment interest in the amount of $35,414.92. The total judgment is $210,483.36, plus post-judgment interest is awarded at a rate of 1.27%. Cardinal Health also entitled to take possession of collateral, as outlined in this Opinion and Order. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 9/20/2017. (lhc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
CARDINAL HEALTH 200, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMOSIL CORP. and
JOSEPH NEWELL, JR.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:15 CV 473

OPINION and ORDER
This matter is before the court on the motion of plaintiff Cardinal Health 200,
LLC (“Cardinal”) for summary judgment against defendant Amosil Corp. (“Amosil”)
on Cardinal’s complaint, which stems from a failed business deal between the parties.
(DE # 37.) Specifically, Cardinal claims that Amosil defaulted on a credit agreement and
a note. (DE # 1.) Cardinal also claims that it is entitled to various assets belonging to
Amosil, as those assets constitute collateral. (Id.) Cardinal has already received a default
judgment against Joseph Newell, Jr., Amosil’s president. (DE # 18.)
Under Federal Rule of Procedure 56, “summary judgment is appropriate – in
fact, is mandated – where there are no disputed issues of material fact and the movant
must prevail as a matter of law. In other words, the record must reveal that no
reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party.” Dempsey v. Atchison, Topeka, &
Santa Fe Ry. Co., 16 F.3d 832, 836 (7th Cir. 1994) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Amosil failed to file a response to Cardinal’s motion for summary judgment, but this
failure does not automatically result in summary judgment for Cardinal. Wienco, Inc. v.

Katahn Assoc., Inc., 965 F.2d 565, 568 (7th Cir. 1992). Rather, the court must still “make
the further finding that given the undisputed facts, summary judgment is proper as a
matter of law.” Id.
The present action is primarily one for breach of contract. Under Ohio law,
which governs this dispute by agreement of the parties (DE # 1-3 at 3), the essential
elements of an action for breach of contract are: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) the
defendant’s breach of the contract; and (3) damages. Powell v. Grant Medical Center, 771
N.E.2d 874, 881 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). In this case, Cardinal has pointed to evidence in
the record demonstrating that Cardinal and Amosil entered into a credit agreement (DE
# 1-1) and a note (DE # 1-3). It is undisputed that Amosil has failed to make full and
timely payments under these documents. It is also undisputed that Amosil agreed that
various property would constitute collateral. (DE # 1-1 at 3, DE # 1-2.) Cardinal has
indicated that the date of breach was September 14, 2015. (DE # 15-1 at 3.) It is also
undisputed that Cardinal has suffered damages by virtue of Amosil’s breach.
Accordingly, Cardinal is entitled to summary judgment on its claims for breach of the
credit agreement (Count I) and breach of the note (Count II).1

1

Count 3 of Cardinal’s complaint was directed at Joseph Newell, Jr., and was
resolved when Cardinal was granted default judgment against Newell. (DE # 18.)
Count 4 is a claim for unjust enrichment, which Cardinal describes as an alternative
cause of action, and which is unnecessary now that a breach of contract has been
established. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed as moot. Finally, Count 5 seeks
enforcement of the security interest Cardinal has in certain collateral. This claim is
simply a request for a particular form of relief, not an action separate from the breach of
contract, so it is also dismissed as moot, though the requested relief will be addressed in
this order.
2

With regard to the quantity of damages, Cardinal has provided uncontested
evidence that Amosil owes $9,628.99 under the credit agreement, and $149,819.00 under
the note. (DE # 37-9 at 3.) The prejudgment interest owed by Amosil from the date of
alleged breach (September 14, 2015) until the present (737 days), at a contractual interest
rate of 11% (DE # 1-3 at 1), is $35,414.92. Cardinal is contractually entitled to attorneys’
fees and costs (DE # 1-3 at 2) in the amount of $15,620.45. Further, under the security
agreement, Cardinal is entitled to possession of certain collateral, including all business
assets, which the court shall delineate in the final judgment. (DE # 1-2 at 1.)
For the foregoing reasons, Cardinal’s motion for summary judgment (DE # 37) is
GRANTED. The Clerk is ordered to ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT for Cardinal, stating:
Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Cardinal Health
200, LLC, and against Defendant Amosil Corp. on Counts I and
II of the complaint, in the amount of in the amount of
$159,447.99, plus attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of
$15,620.45, plus prejudgment interest in the amount of
$35,414.92. The total judgment is $210,483.36. Post-judgment
interest is awarded at a rate of 1.27%.
Cardinal is also entitled to take possession of the
following collateral: All business assets, including but not
limited to, goods, equipment, inventory, accounts, accounts
receivable, chattel paper, instruments, investment property
and all general intangibles, books and records, computer
programs and records, and other personal property, tangible
or intangible, related to any of the foregoing (including,
without limitation, all prescription files, patient lists, signs,
appliances, cash registers, computers, computer software,
shelving, check-out counters, compressors, freezers, coolers,
display cases, customer records, sundries, tobacco products,
prescription and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products,
health and beauty aids, home healthcare products and general
merchandise and supplies); all accessions and additions to,
substitutions for, and replacements of any of the foregoing; all
3

proceeds or products of any of the foregoing; and all rights to
payments under any insurance or warranty, guaranty, or
indemnity payable with respect to any of the foregoing.
SO ORDERED.
Date: September 20, 2017
s/James T. Moody
JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4