UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

CAPSA SOLUTIONS, LLC., d.b.a. 

CAPSA HEALTHCARE, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

CONCORD HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC., 

d.b.a. CONCORD HEALTHCARE GROUP, 

 Defendant. 

Civil Action 2:18-cv-594 

 

Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura 

OPINION AND ORDER 

This is an action to recover money on an account stated under Ohio common law, 

prejudgment interest under Ohio Revised Code § 1343.03(A), and postjudgment interest under 

28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). Plaintiff, Capsa Solutions, LLC., d.b.a. Capsa Healthcare, asserts that 

Defendant, Concord Healthcare Group, LLC., d.b.a. Concord Healthcare Group, owes a sum of 

$164,875.19 exclusive of interest, representing Defendant’s failure to pay for goods sold and 

delivered by Plaintiff. This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Default 

Judgment. (ECF No. 31.) The motion is fully briefed and ripe for disposition. For the following 

reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED, and Defendant is ORDERED

to pay $164,875.19, plus prejudgment and postjudgment interest according to the applicable 

statutory rates. 
2 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff is a foreign limited liability company with its principal place of business in 

Canal Winchester, Ohio. (Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1.) Defendant is a New Jersey limited liability 

company based in Lakewood, New Jersey. (Id. ¶ 2.) From May to July 2016, Plaintiff sold and 

delivered healthcare products to Defendant. (Id. ¶ 5.) The statement of account for these sales 

amounts to $164,875.19, with the parties’ last transaction occurring on July 13, 2016. (ECF No. 

1-1.) After Defendant’s failure to pay the balance owed for nearly two years, Plaintiff 

commenced this action on June 15, 2018. (Compl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 1.) The Complaint sets forth 

Plaintiff’s claims for recovery of the amount past due on the account and all related costs and 

interest. (Id. ¶ 12.) Defendant retained Monica L. Narvaez as counsel and filed an Answer on 

September 13, 2018. (ECF No. 11.) Approximately seven months later, Narvaez filed a motion 

to withdraw as counsel for Defendant. (ECF No. 25.) When granting the motion to withdraw, 

this Court ordered Defendant to retain a trial attorney within thirty days, pursuant to Southern 

District of Ohio Civil Rule 83.4. (ECF No. 26.) On May 17, 2019, Plaintiff moved for 

Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 27.) Defendant did not respond to this Motion and failed to 

comply with this Court’s ensuing Order to Show Cause. (Mot. for Default J. ¶ 6, ECF No. 31.) 

As a result, this Court directed the Clerk to enter Default Judgment against Defendant and 

ordered Plaintiff to move for Default Judgment within thirty days of the entry. (Id. ¶ 7.) On July 

23, 2019, Plaintiff filed the present Motion for Default Judgment. (Id.) 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 provides that “when a party against whom a judgment 

for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and the failure is shown 

by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). 

Subsequently, unless a claim is for a sum certain or a sum that can be made certain by 
3 

computation, plaintiff “must apply to the court for a default judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). 

“Even if a default has been entered against a party, it remains for the court to consider whether 

the unchallenged facts constitute a legitimate cause of action, since a party in default does not 

admit mere conclusions of law.” Anderson v. Johnson, No. 98-1931, 1999 WL 1023753, at * 2 

(6th Cir. Nov. 4, 1999) (citing Quirindongo Pacheco v. Rolon Morales, 953 F.2d 15, 16 (1st Cir. 

1992)). In considering a motion for default judgment, all “factual allegations of the complaint, 

except those related to the amount of damages, will be taken as true.” Harris v. Cooley, No. 

1:17-CV-540, 2019 WL 1573260, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 11, 2019). If the defaulting party is 

found liable for the cause of action, that “does not resolve issues relating to damages.” Antione 

v. Atlas Tucker, Inc. 66 F.3d 105, 111 (6th Cir. 1995). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

55, if the amount of damages is unclear “the court may conduct hearings or make referrals” in 

order to “determine the amount of damages.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). 

III. DISCUSSION 

A. Account Stated Under Ohio Law Claim 

Plaintiff first asserts that Defendant violated Ohio common law by failing to pay the sum 

of an account stated. In Ohio, a prima facie case to recover money on an account stated requires 

the following elements: (1) a showing that an account in the name of the charged party exists; 

(2) a starting balance of zero or another provable sum; (3) items listed with accompanying dates 

and charges; and (4) summarization of the running balance verifying the amount claimed to be 

owed. Citibank, NA v. Abrahamson, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2016 AP 110055, 2017-Ohio5566, ¶ 21 (citing Carasalina, L.L.C. v. Smith Philips & Assocs., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 13AP1027, 2014-Ohio-2423, ¶ 20; Great Seneca Fin. v. Felty, 170 Ohio App.3d 737, 2006-Ohio6618, 869 N.E.2d 30, ¶ 6). 
4 

Here, Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that Defendant owes $164,875.19 on an account stated. 

(Compl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff’s Exhibit A (“Statement of Account”) satisfies the 

evidentiary burden to establish a prima facie case for recovery of an account stated. (See ECF 

No. 1-1.) The Statement of Account denotes Defendant’s name and business address. (Id.) The 

statement begins with a sum of $446.37 on July 13, 2016, representing the first transaction in the 

disputed account. (Id.) Each item in the statement is accompanied by an invoice date, invoice 

number, charge, and payment made towards the balance owed. (Id.) The statement ends by 

summarizing the running balance as $164,875.19 and correctly reflects the total charges to 

Defendant. (Id.) Defendant has not paid the outstanding balance and offers no contrary 

evidence. (Compl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 1; Mot. for Default J. ¶ 6, ECF No. 31.) Accepting Plaintiff’s 

allegations of liability as true, each element under Ohio law to recover money on an account 

stated is met. Further, Plaintiff’s account documentation is sufficient evidence to prove the 

amount of damages. Accordingly, Default Judgment is GRANTED for Plaintiff’s first claim of 

relief and Defendant is ORDERED to pay Plaintiff $164,875.19. 

B. Prejudgment Interest Claim 

Next, Plaintiff requests prejudgment interest, at an annual rate of 5.0%, running from July 

13, 2016, until the date of the entry of judgment. (Mot. for Default J. ¶ 10, ECF No. 31.) The 

purpose of prejudgment interest is to make the injured party whole by accounting for the delay in 

compensation. Osborn v. Griffin, 865 F.3d 417, 458 (6th Cir. 2017) (citing Funkhouser v. J.B. 

Preston Co., 290 U.S. 163, 168 (1933)). Unlike postjudgment interest, which is administered 

according to 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a), there is no comparable federal statute governing prejudgment 

interest. City of Milwaukee v. Cement Div., Nat. Gypsum Co., 515 U.S. 189, 194 (1995). 

Instead, state law determines prejudgment interest. Estate of Riddle ex. rel. Riddle v. S. Farm 

Bureau Life Ins. Co., 421 F.3d 400, 409 (6th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). In Ohio, 
5 

prejudgment interest is governed by Ohio Revised Code § 1343.03, which provides, in pertinent 

part, that “when money becomes due and payable upon . . . any book account . . . the creditor is 

entitled to interest at a rate per annum determined pursuant to section 5703.47 of the Revised 

Code, unless a written contract provides a different rate of interest . . . .” Ohio Rev. Code

§ 1343.03(A). Section 5703.47 requires that the federal short-term rate, rounded to the nearest 

whole number, plus three percent, is used to determine prejudgment interest that accrues during 

the relevant calendar year. Ohio Rev. Code § 5703.47. The applicable interest rate for 2016, 

when Plaintiff’s claim accrued, is 3.0%. Annual Certified Interest Rates, Ohio Dep’t. of 

Taxation, https://www.tax.ohio.gov/ohio_individual/individual/interest_rates.aspx. 

Consequently, Defendant is ORDERED to pay Plaintiff prejudgment interest at the applicable 

statutory rate of 3.0% per annum on the $164,875.19 award from July 13, 2016, until the date of 

this Order. 

C. Postjudgment Interest Claim 

Lastly, Plaintiff contends it is entitled to postjudgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1961(a). The purpose of postjudgment interest is to compensate the prevailing plaintiff for the 

time-value of money lost between the occurrence of damages and the defendant’s payment at a 

later date. Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827, 835-36 (1990). 28 

U.S.C. § 1961(a) requires postjudgment interest to be paid on money awarded by districts courts 

in civil actions. Broad Street Energy Co. v. Endeavor Ohio LLC, No. 2:12-CV-711, 2014 WL 

12657033 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 14, 2014) at *4 (citing O’Sullivan Corp. v. Duro-Last, Inc., 7 F. 

App’x 509, 519 (6th Cir. 2001)). The district court has no discretion to deny postjudgment 

interest, as it is mandatory. Caffey v. Unum Life Ins. Co., 302 F .3d 576, 586 (6th Cir. 2002). 28 

U.S.C. § 1961(a) further dictates that, “[s]uch 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 
6 

yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar 

week preceding the date of the judgment.” 

Accordingly, Defendant is ORDERED to pay postjudgment interest at the applicable 

statutory rate from the date of this Order until the judgment is satisified. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED. 

Defendant is ORDERED to pay Plaintiff $164,875.19 along with prejudgment and 

postjudgment interest at the applicable statutory rates as set forth above. The Clerk shall enter 

judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant accordingly. The Clerk shall remove ECF 

No. 31 from the Court’s pending motions list. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura 

CHELSEY M. VASCURA 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE