United States of America for the Use and Benefit of James Communication, Inc. et al v. LACO Electric, Inc. et al

Filing 50

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 4/28/2015. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR THE
USE AND BENEFIT OF JAMES
:
COMMUNICATION, INC., et al.
:
v.

:

Civil Action No. DKC 14-0946

:
LACO ELECTRIC, INC., et al.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The facts underlying this contract dispute are set forth in
a prior memorandum opinion.

(ECF No. 47).

The court issued a

memorandum opinion and order on March 27, 2015, granting an
unopposed motion for partial summary judgment filed by Plaintiff
James Communication, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “JCI”) and entering
judgment

in

the

amount

of

$94,969.48

against

Defendant

LACO

Electric, Inc. (“LACO”) on count two of the complaint for breach
of contract.
before

the

(ECF Nos. 47 & 48).1
court

issued

the

On March 26, 2015, the day

memorandum

opinion

and

order,

Plaintiff filed a supplement to its motion for partial summary
judgment

seeking

$20,266.83.

pre-judgment

(ECF No. 46, at 1).

interest

in

the

amount

of

The court denied the request

for pre-judgment interest without prejudice to renewal:

1

Counts One, Three, Six, and Seven of the complaint were
also dismissed.
(ECF No. 48 ¶ 4).
Plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed counts four and five of the complaint. (ECF No. 9).

Here, the record is insufficient to grant
prejudgment interest.
In the complaint,
Plaintiff sought judgment in the amount of
$194,969.48
with
pre-judgment
interest,
without any specification as to when the
breach of contract claim accrued as to LACO.
Moreover, Plaintiff did not request prejudgment interest in its motion for partial
summary judgment.
(See ECF No. 25).
The
affidavit in support of the motion for
partial summary judgment is devoid of any
facts from which it can be determined when
the breach of contract occurred, let alone
that it occurred on June 7, 2013 as
Plaintiff now suggests in its supplemental
submission.
The complaint only indicates
that Plaintiff demanded payment from LACO
via email on June 7, 2013 for the materials
and services provided pursuant to the FTD
Purchase
Order,
but
this
does
not
conclusively establish that the obligation
to pay became due then.
(See ECF No. 1 ¶
21).
In fact, the complaint indicates that
Plaintiff agreed to perform additional work
on June 8, 2013.
The reference to June 7,
2013 as the date of the “bond claim to
Hartford” in the supplemental submission is
also unclear and does not conclusively
establish that prejudgment interest should
accrue from June 7, 2013.
Without more
information, prejudgment interest cannot be
fairly awarded.
(ECF No. 47, at 6-7).
On March 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed a second supplement to
its motion for partial summary judgment, renewing its request
for pre-judgment interest and providing additional information
concerning this request.

(ECF No. 49).

LACO did not file any

response to the supplement and the time for it to do so has
passed.

2

As stated in the prior opinion, on January 17, 2011, LACO
contracted

with

Plaintiff

to

provide

the

systems for the Fort Detrick Project.

telecommunications

Under the terms of the

purchase order (“FTD Purchase Order”), LACO was required to pay
Plaintiff $194,969.48 for materials and services in providing
the

telecommunications

system

for

the

(See ECF No. 25-1, purchase order).

Fort

Detrick

Project.

Plaintiff submits as an

exhibit to its second supplement an affidavit from Robert J.
Griffin, the Controller of TWD & Associates, Inc., of which
Plaintiff is a wholly owned subsidiary.
Mr.

Griffin

submitted

indicates

to

LACO

an

that

on

(ECF No. 49-1 ¶¶ 2-3).

February

invoice,

invoice

14,

2013,

number

Plaintiff

17585,

in

the

principal amount of $130,000 with payment due on or before March
16, 2013.
invoice).

(ECF No. 49-1 ¶¶ 11-12; see also ECF No. 49-1, at 4
Mr.

Griffin

further

states

that

Plaintiff

last

furnished labor/materials under the Purchase Order on June 7,
2013,

and

on

the

same

date,

submitted

an

invoice

to

LACO,

invoice number 18052, in the additional amount of $64,969.48,
with payment due on or before July 7, 2013.

(ECF No. 49-1 ¶¶ 9,

13-14; ECF No. 49-1, at 5, invoice).
As indicated in the prior opinion, “interest is allowable
as a matter of right for a breach of contract to pay when the
amount

due

has

been

liquidated,

ascertained,

or

agreed

to.”

United States v. State of W.Va., 764 F.2d 1028, 1031 (4th Cir.
3

1985); Wood Prods., Inc. v. CMI Corp., 651 F.Sup.. 641, 653
(D.Md.

1986).

The

total

amount

of

the

purchase

order,

$194,969.48, was ascertained and became due by LACO on July 7,
2013.

Plaintiff

was

not

paid

until

Grimberg submitted a $100,000 to it.

February

5,

2015,

when

(See ECF No. 49, at 3 n.2;

see also ECF No. 46 ¶ 2, indicating the date of Grimberg’s
$100,000

payment

to

Plaintiff).

Accordingly,

pre-judgment

interest will be awarded on the principal amount of $194,969.48
from

July

7,

2013

to

February

5,

2015,

the

date

Grimberg

remitted payment in the amount of $100,000, leaving unpaid the
remainder amount of $94,969.48.2

Pre-judgment interest on the

unpaid remainder of $94,969.48 will be awarded from February 5,
2015

until

March

27,

2015,

when

the

court

issued

an

order

entering judgment in favor of Plaintiff.
A separate order will follow.

DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

2

In Maryland, the legal rate of interest is six percent per
annum.
Mitchell v. Kentmorr Harbour Marina, No. WMN-19-0337,
2011 WL 5826674, at *5 (D.Md. Nov. 17, 2011) (citing Md. Const.
art. III, § 57).
4