additional credit memoranda in the amount of $6,829.64, OTN
disputed that OFIMA was entitled to these credits, but it failed
to offer any evidence to support its position. The Court
therefore concluded that OFIMA was entitled to credits in the
amount of $22,672.18.

Based upon the documentary evidence submitted by the
parties, and based upon the admissions and arguments made by the
parties, the Court found that OTN had proven the existence of an
account stated, and it, therefore, granted OTN’s motion for
summary judgment on that theory (the Court denied the motion with
respect to the breach of contract and quasi-contract claims).
Additionally, based upon the invoices and the evidence OFIMA
submitted concerning credits, the Court found that judgment
should enter in OTN’s favor in the amount of $121,490.96. OTN
now asks the Court to award interest on that judgment.

DISCUSSION

In its motion, OTN asks the Court, under Rule 59(e) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to amend the May 12, 2003
judgment to add an award of prejudgment interest, consistent with
the Illinois Interest Act, 815 ILCS 205/2. The Interest Act
provides that “{c]reditors shall be allowed to receive at the
rate of five (5) per centum per annum for all moneys after they

become due on any bond, bill, promissory note, or other



finding that OTN had proven the existence of an account stated,
the Court recognized that there was “[a]n agreement between the
parties . . . that the account representing the transactions
between them is true, and that the balance is accurate.” See
Toth v. Mansell, 207 Ill. App. 3d 665, 671-72, 566 N.E.2d 730,
734 (1990), quoted in Oncology Therapeutics Network, 2003 WL
21087954, at *6. In other words, the Court found that both
parties agreed to the accuracy of the product invoices submitted
in support of OTN’s motion, and that both parties agreed that
those invoices evidenced the amount of OFIMA’s debt to OTN. See
Oncology Therapeutics Network, 2003 WL 21087954, at *7. Although
it is true that the parties disputed the amount of the credits to
which OFIMA was entitled, that dispute does not take the case
outside the scope of the Illinois Interest Act. See In re
Assured Fastener Products Corp., 38 B.R. 161, 163-64 (Bankr. N.D.
Til. 1984) (a “setoff claim is not an objection to the accuracy
of the [underlying] account”).

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that OTN is entitled
to an award of prejudgment interest under the Illinois Interest
Act, 815 ILCS 205/2. Interest accrues, at the rate of 5%, from
the date of billing. In this case, there are multiple billing
dates, because the clock will run separately for each product

invoice From the date each was issued. OTN submitted a proposed


been adequately compensated for the time value of money, end an
award of interest on top of that would amount to 4 double
recovery. Finally, OFIMA argues that an award of prejudgment
interest is appropriate only where the damages are liquidated,
and that was not the case here. Before addressing these
arguments, the Court must re-examine its calculation of the
underlying judgment amount.

When it entered summary judgment in OTN'’s favor, the Court
did not provide any details concerning its calculation. But, a
further review of the invoices and the other documentary evidence
shows that the numbers simply do not add up. The Court stated
that the total due on the invoices (the product invoices and the
finance chargé invoices) was $144,163.14. But that is not
correct. The product invoices total $135,402.07 and the finance
charge invoices total $9,765.96, for a combined total of
$145,168.03. The Court’s use of the $144,163.14 number is
perhaps understandable, given that this was the number pushed by
OTN in its papers. But understandable or not, this number is not
supported by the evidence.*

Oo

3purther confusing the math here, OTN’s Financial Services
Manager, Laura Bennett, submitted an affidavit in support of
OTN’s summary judgment motion stating that OFIMA’S total
outstanding balance was $128,320.66. The Court has no idea how
Ms. Bennett arrived at that number, as it does not seem to be
supported by the invoices.


instrument of writing; . . . on money due on the settlement of
account from the day of liquidating accounts between the parties
and ascertaining the balance... .” 815 ILCS 205/2 (West
2000). The statute allows a plaintiff to collect interest on an
account stated claim. See Katten Muchin & Zavis v. Elder Care
Services, Inc., No. 91 € 5256, 1992 WL 51698, at *4 (N.D. Ill.
March 9, 1992). Interest would run on this type of claim from
the date of billing of the liquidated amount, which in this case
would vary for each invoice. See id., (citing Chicago & Eastern
Railroad Co. v. Martin Bros., 87 Ill. App. 3d 327, 408 N.E.2d
1031, 1037 (1980)).

OFIMA urges the Court to deny OTN’s interest request for
three reasons. First, OFIMA argues that OTN’s motion is
procedurally improper under Rule 59(e). The United States
Supreme Court has held otherwise, see Osterneck v, Ernst &
Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 176 (1989) (“a postjudgment motion for
discretionary prejudgment interest involves the kind of
reconsideration of matters encompassed within the merits of a
judgment to which Rule 59(¢e) was intended to apply”), and so the
Court quickly rejects this argument

OFIMA next argues that an award of interest would be

improper because the judgment amount already includes finance

charges. As a practical matter, OFIMA argues, OTN has already



finds that the amount of the judgment should have been
$112,729.89, not $121,490.96. And the Court’s May 12, 2003
opinion is amended to reflect this judgment amount.

The Court’s explanation of the judgment calculation resolves
OFIMA’s argument that an award of interest on top of the finance
charges would amount to a double recovery. As explained above,
the judgment, as amended, excludes the finance charge invoices,
and so there is no risk that OTN will be compensated twice for
the time value of money.

Finally, the Court considers OFIMA’s claim that interest is
improper here because the damages OTN sought were not liquidated.
OFIMA’s fixation with liquidated damages is misplaced. Under
Illinois law, interest is allowed where damages are “liquidated
ox can be ascertained by simple and certain computation.” Kaiser
Agricultural Chemicals v. Rice, 138 Ill. App. 3d 706, 712, 486
N.E.2d 417, 422 (1985) (emphasis added). The latter may be true
even if the amount requires legal ascertainment. See Michigan
Avenue National Bank of Chicago v. Evans, Inc., 176 Ill. App. 3d
1047, 1061, 531 N.B.2d 872, 881 (1988) (citing LaGrange Metal
Products v. Pettibone Mulliken Corp., 106 Tll. App. 3d 1046, 436
N.E.2d 645 (1982)).

Here, despite the mistakes and confusion noted above, the

damages were subject to simple and certain computation. In



Millute Order Form (477)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

vende Maginonte fudge Arlander Keys “than Assigned sudge

CASE NUMBER 01 € 2079 DATE 11/13/2003
CASE Oncology Therapeutics Network vs. Olympia Fields Internal Medicine
TITLE

[In the following bux (u) indicate the pany tiling the motion, e.g. plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
Of the motion heing presented. |

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY;

q) ob Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Qa Bricf in support of motion due
G) QO Answer brief to motion due____.- Reply to answer brief due
(4) Oo Ruling/Hearingon__ set for at
(5) oO Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on_——setfor_ at.
(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] (set for/re-set for]on__—ssetfor_ at.
(7) Oo Triallset for/re-set for]on at
(8) Q [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) o This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OFRCP4@m) CLocal Rule 41.1 OO FRCP41(aX1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).
ao) = [Other docket entry) Memorandum Opinion and Order entered. Plaintiffs Motion to amend
judgment to include prejudgment interest [#45] is hereby granted. This Order disposes of all outstanding
motions, AK
ai) si [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required. a
v | Notices mailed by judge’s statt, Nov 1
Notified counsel by telephone. date dogheted
Docketing to mail notices, Ll
Mail AO 450 form, ner, cofeedng Neputy initials {

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

nAyROM

o dare mailed notice

courtroom "

Pry deputy's ; .
initials =
Sh 23. Datertime received ia .
central Clerk's Office ruitng deputy initia



interest calculation, along with a spreadsheet backing up its
proposal, But because that proposal includes interest on the
finance charge invoices, the Court rejects it. OTN is directed
to submit a revised spreadsheet showing the appropriate interest
for the product invoices only, and covering the period from each
invoice issuance date to the date of the judgment, May 12, 2003.
CONCLUSION

For the reasons explained above, the Court amends its
earlier judgment in two respects. First, the Court amends the
judgment amount; judgment should have been, and hereby is
entered in the amount of $112,729.89, not $121,490.96. Second,
the Court amends the judgment to include an award of prejudgment
interest under the Iliinois Interest Act, 815 ILCS 205/2. If the
parties are unable to agree to the amount of prejudgment
interest, OTN is directed to submit a revised spreadsheet showing
the amount of interest it contends should be awarded. After
reviewing OTN’s revised spreadsheet, and OFIMA’s response
thereto, the Court will issue a further order setting the exact-

amount of the interest award.

Dated: November 13, 2003 ENTER:
ARLANDER KEYS >

United States Magistrate Judge

10



Another source of confusion is whether the finance charge
invoices were included in the judgment amount, and, if so,
whether they should have been. At one point in its summary
judgment opinion, the Court stated that the relevant invoices
were those dated between March 1, 2000 and May 11, 2000, see
Oncology Therapeutics Network v. Olympia Fields Internal Medicine
Associates, No. 01 C 2079, 2003 WL 21087954, at *7 (N.D. Til. May
13, 2003), which suggests that the finance charge invoices are
not included in the judgment calculation. Elsewhere, the Court
seems to indicate that it intended to include the finance charge
invoices in the judgment. See id, (“Therefore, OFIMA has implied
its consent to purchase the merchandise listed on the invoices
for the stated prices, as well as the finance charges . «+ + “)+
To the extent the Court’s prior judgment award included the
amount of the finance charge invoices, that was a mistake. As
noted above, OTN made no showing that those finance charges
actually accrued on balances covered by the product invoices OTN
submitted. And, in fact, at least some of those invoices could
not, consistent with the terms of the parties’ relationship, have
related to those invoices. Thus, the starting point for the
judgment calculation should have been $135,402.07, the amount of
the product invoices. Reducing this sum by $22,672.18 (the

amount of the credits to which OFIMA was entitled), the Court

7


the product and finance charge invoices, and OTN sued.

In its complaint, OTN alleged claims for breach of contract,
for quasi-contractual remedies, and for recovery under an account
stated theory. OTN moved for summary judgment on all three
claims, and, to support its motion, OTN submitted the twenty-
three product invoices as evidence of the contractual
relationship between the parties and as evidence of the belance
owed on that account. OTN also submitted the seven finance
charge invoices, though it made no showing that those invoices
actually related to the unpaid balance resulting from the twenty-
three product invoices, In fact, the dates on at least some of
the finance charge invoices suggest that they could not,
consistent with the seventy-five-day provision, be related to the
product invoices OTN submitted with its motion. The finance
charge invoice dated March 31, 2000, for example, could only
relate to an unpaid balance existing on or before early January
of 2000; yet the earliest product invoice is dated March i, 2000,
just thirty days before that finance charge invoice was issued.

In connection with the motion for summary judgment, OFIMA
acknowledged that it had ordered merchandise from OTN, but
provided evidence showing that it had paid at least part of the
alleged outstanding balance. OFIMA showed that it had paid

$15,842.54 on its account, and it also showed that OTN had issued



invoices”) cover the period of time beginning March 1, 2000 and
ending May 11, 2000, and they total $135,402.07.'

Under the terms of the invoices OTN sent to OFIMA, if OFIMA
failed to pay within seventy-five days, OTN was entitled to
recover a 12% finance charge on any unpaid balance. Allegedly
consistent with that provision, in addition to the twenty-three
product invoices, OTN sent OFIMA seven invoices covering only
finance charges (the “finance charge invoices”). These invoices
cover the period from March 31, 2000 to February 28, 2001 and

total $9,765.96.? OFIMA failed to pay the balances reflected in

'The exact products covered in the invoices are not relevant for
the Court's purposes today. But the dates and corresponding
amounts are significant enough to be included. The product
invoices consist of the following: (1) a 3/1/00 invoice for
$16,004.89; (2) a 3/2/00 invoice for $6,661.13; (3) a 3/2/00
invoice for $942.33; (4) a 3/6/00 for $4,498.34; (5) a 3/8/00
invoice for $2,038.48; (6) a 3/08/00 invoice for $1,977.67; (7) a
3/13/00 invoice for $1,981.65; (8) a 3/15/00 invoice for
$6,212.24; (9} a 3/16/00 invoice for $41.97; (10) a 3/16/00
invoice for $1,062.83; (11) a 3/20/00 invoice for $3,790.89; (12)
a 3/21/00 invoice for $4,900.89; (13) a 3/30/00 invoice for
$2,088.60; (14) a 3/31/00 invoice for $4,020.24; (15) a 4/03/00
invoice for $9,657.41; (16) a 4/07/00 invoice for $4,740.51; (17)
a 4/10/00 invoice for $19,828.08; (18) a 4/18/00 invoice for
$4,612.23; (19) a 5/01/00 invoice for $11,734.96; (20) a 5/09/00
invoice for $364.16; (21) a 5/09/00 invoice for $16,663.17; (22)
a 5/11/00 invoice for $9,601.73; and (23) a 5/11/00 invoice for
$1,977.67.

"The finance charge invoices consist of the following: (1) a
3/31/00 invoice for $1,529.98; (2) a 4/30/00 invoice for
$1,466.11; (3) a 5/31/00 invoice for $1,294.23; (4) a 6/30/00
invoice for $1,439.39; (5) a 11/30/00 invoice for $1,348.14; (6)
a 12/31/00 invoice for $1,344.14; (7) a 2/28/01 invoice for
$1,343.97.



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

ONCOLOGY THERAPEUTICS NETWORK
JOINT VENTURE, L.P.,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 01 C 2079
OLYMPIA FIELDS INTERNAL MEDICINE
ASSOCIATES, S.C. (INC.) d/b/a
HORIZON HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATES,
S.C.,

Magistrate Judge
Arlander Keys

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On May 12, 2003, this Court entered Summary Judgment in
favor of Oncology Therapeutics Network Joint Venture, L.P.
(“OTN”) and against Olympia Fields Internal Medicine Associates,
8.C. (“OFIMA”). OTN now asks the Court to amend that judgement to
add an award of prejudgment interest. For the reasons set forth
below, the Court grants OTN’s motion.
FACTS
OTN manufactures and sells pharmaceuticals used to treat
cancer. OTN sold and delivered various products to OFIMA, a
general medical practice, and then sent invoices to OFIMA
itemizing the preducts delivered and requesting payment. All
told, OTN sent OFIMA twenty-three invoices covering products;

these invoices (hereinafter referred to as the “product

54