Hitachi Medical Systems America, Inc. v. Advanced Medical Resources, Inc.

Filing 97

Memorandum of Opinion and Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for reconsideration of the interest rate awarded in the Court's February 11, 2011 judgment entry to the extent that Hitachi points out that this Court awarded interest at the statuatory rate rather than the contract rate. Regarding pre and post-judgment interest, Hitachi is entitled to the contract rate of 1.5% per month. Related Documents # 88 , 87 . Judge John R. Adams on 3/22/11.(R,Sh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION HITACHI MEDICAL SYSTEMS AMERICA, INC. Plaintiff, vs. ADVANCED MEDICAL RESOURCES, INC., et al. Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 5:09cv914 JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION (Resolving Doc. 88)

This m atter i s be fore t he C ourt on Plaintiff's, H itachi M edical S ystems ("Hitachi"), motion to reconsider the interest rate awarded in the Court's February 11, 2011 judgment entry. This motion is GRANTED to the extent that Hitachi points out that this Court awarded interest at the statutory rate rather than the contract rate. STATUTORY INTEREST vs. LAWFUL RATE In the Court's judgment entry (Doc. 87) resolving Hitachi's motion for attorney fees and costs (Doc. 74) the Court stated that it d id "not intend to calculate the statutory interest rate at issue in th is c ase. A lthough th e p arties r ecognize th at th e S MA a nticipated in terest at e ither 1.5% or the statutory rate, which was the lowest, neither party has attempted to calculate the rate for th e C ourt. G iven th at th e C ourt h as in formed th e p arties th at th e r ate a t is sue w ill b e th e statutory r ate, th e C ourt d eems th is matter c losed." In i ts m otion f or reconsideration of t his conclusion, Hitachi notes that the SMA states in relevant part that "Invoices not paid within ten (10) da ys of t he i nvoice da te w ill ha ve a 1.5 p ercent pe r m onth i nterest charge, or t he highest lawful rate, whichever is less, assessed against the unpaid balance from the date of the invoice

until the date of payment." (Emphasis added.) Hitachi contends in its motion for reconsideration of th is is sue, f or th e f irst time , th at th e s tatutory rate is th e default rate, not t he highest r ate permitted by law and further that there is no maximum limit to the interest rate on an obligation of a corporation. Therefore, the lowest applicable rate in this case is the contract rate of 1.5%. The C ourt not es t hat de spite the c ontentious na ture of t his c ase a nd t he vol uminous f ilings regarding co sts an d f ees, the i ssue as s tated i n H itachi's m otion f or r econsideration w as ne ver mentioned or explained to the Court. Instead, Hitachi simply asserted conclusory statements that the contract rate applied, and never attempted to support this contention with the case law it now cites n or attempted to illu strate to th e C ourt th e a lternative r ate in a n e ffort to p rove th at th e contract rate w as i ndeed t he l owest applicable r ate. Neither p arty ex plained t he d ifference between t he s tatutory r ate an d "h ighest l awful r ate." Instead, H itachi s tates here that "[ b]ased upon the express language of the SMA, it appeared clear that the contract interest rate was less than the highest lawful rate, and thus specific issue was never in dispute." The Court does not agree with Hitachi's contention that this issue was never in dispute as the pre and post-judgment interest rate at issue was vigorously argued. For example, in its initial motion f or at torney fees an d costs ( Doc. 74) , H itachi s imply requested interest at t he co ntract rate of 1.5%. Defendants contested this amount. H itachi then stated in its reply (Doc. 76) that "Ohio law is clear that `a judgment creditor is entitled to an interest rate in excess of the statutory interest r ate pu rsuant t o R .C. 1343.03( A) w hen ( 1) t he pa rties ha ve a w ritten c ontract, a nd (2) that contract provides a rate of interest with respect to money that becomes due and payable.'" Thus, i t a ppears t hat H itachi was arguing f or t he co ntract r ate i n l ieu o f t he s tatutory rate. Repeated references to the statutory rate of interest are made throughout the parties' filings. In its order disposing of this issue, the Court declined to calculate the statutory interest rate because

the parties declined to do s o themselves. Upon review of the cases cited by Hitachi, the Court, however, i s convinced t hat H itachi's r eading of t he S MA as s tated in its mo tion f or reconsideration is co rrect an d t herefore r econsiders i ts d ecision g ranting H itachi interest a t the statutory rate. Hitachi shall be awarded interest at the contract rate of 1.5% per month. The C ourt not es t hat D efendants r equest t hat, s hall i t r econsider i ts de cision a warding Hitachi the statutory rate, it s hould also reconsider the Court's grant of the statutory rate on t he overpayments m ade b y Open M RI of W ichita. T he C ourt de clines t o do s o be cause t hese payments are not contemplated by the SMA and therefore are not governed by contract. T hus, the statutory interest rate is the applicable rate. CONCLUSION Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The Court concludes that regarding pre and post-judgment interest, Hitachi is entitled to the contract rate of 1.5% per month. IT IS SO ORDERED. March 22, 2011 /s/ John R. Adams_______ JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT