1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

CHS, INC., a Minnesota corporation,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

VALLEY VIEW FEEDERS, INC., a 

Nebraska corporation, and RITCH BLYTHE, 

an individual,

Defendants.

8:23CV168

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff CHS, Inc.’s (“CHS’s”) motion for 

default judgment. Filing No. 10. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court will enter 

default judgment.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the entry of a default judgment against 

a party is committed to the “sound discretion of the trial court.” Belcourt Pub. Sch. Dist. 

v. Davis, 786 F.3d 653, 661 (8th Cir. 2015). It is “appropriate for a district court to enter 

a default judgment when a party fails to appropriately respond in a timely manner.” 

Marshall v. Baggett, 616 F.3d 849, 852 (8th Cir. 2010). “Upon default, the factual 

allegations of a complaint (except those relating to the amount of damages) are taken as 

true. Murray v. Lene, 595 F.3d 868, 871 (8th Cir. 2010). It is, however, “incumbent upon 

the district court to ensure that ‘the unchallenged facts constitute a legitimate cause of 

action’ prior to entering final judgment.” Marshall, 616 F.3d at 852–53 (quoting Murray, 

595 F.3d at 871). Moreover, “a default judgment cannot be entered until the amount of 

8:23-cv-00168-JFB-SMB Doc # 17 Filed: 08/09/23 Page 1 of 4 - Page ID # 93
2

damages has been ascertained.” Hagen v. Sisseton-Wahpeton Cmty. Coll., 205 F.3d 

1040, 1042 (8th Cir. 2000). 

In the case at hand, the unchallenged facts establish a legitimate cause of action 

for breach of contract. Specifically, CHS’s complaint alleges it is a Minnesota-based 

commodities marketer that buys and sells grain. Filing No. 1 at 2. CHS sold grain on 

credit to defendant Valley View Feeders, Inc. (“Valley View”), a cattle feedlot in Dawson 

County. Id. Defendant Blythe signed the credit agreement on behalf of Valley View as 

its president. Id.; Filing No. 1-1 at 4. Blythe also signed a personal guaranty. Filing No. 

1 at 2; Filing No. 1-1 at 4. From June to September 2022, Valley View purchased 

approximately 80,801.01 bushels of yellow corn on an open account for the sum of 

$669,006.23. Filing No. 1 at 3; Filing No. 1-3 at 3; Filing No. 11-1 at 8–26. According to 

CHS, Valley View failed to comply with the credit agreement which required it to pay all 

applicable charges within twenty days. Filing No. 1 at 2; Filing No. 11-1 at 5.

The credit agreement provides that Minnesota law governs any disputes that arise 

between the parties. Filing No. 11-1 at 5. Under Minnesota law, “[t]he elements of a 

breach of contract claim are ‘(1) formation of a contract, (2) performance by plaintiff of 

any conditions precedent to his right to demand performance by the defendant, and (3) 

breach of the contract by defendant.’” Lyon Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Illinois Paper & Copier 

Co., 848 N.W.2d 539, 543 (Minn. 2014) (quoting Park Nicollet Clinic v. Hamann, 808 

N.W.2d 828, 833 (Minn. 2011)). Here, CHS’s complaint alleges the parties entered into 

a credit agreement, CHS provided the promised grain, and Valley View failed to pay. See 

generally Filing No. 1. Thus, the Court finds default judgment is appropriate.

8:23-cv-00168-JFB-SMB Doc # 17 Filed: 08/09/23 Page 2 of 4 - Page ID # 94
3

The Court also concludes the amount of damages can be ascertained from the 

record and without the need for an additional evidentiary hearing. CHS submits 

documentation showing that subsequent to its breach, Valley View paid a total of 

$407,000 toward the total amount due, resulting in an outstanding principal amount of 

$262,006.23. Filing No. 13-1 at 1. Additionally, the contract provides for an interest 

charge of 1.5% per month on all outstanding balances. Filing No. 11-1 at 5. CHS seeks 

both prejudgment interest and postjudgment interest.

“In a diversity case, the question of prejudgment interest is controlled by state law.” 

Capella Univ., Inc. v. Exec. Risk Specialty Ins. Co., 617 F.3d 1040, 1052 (8th Cir. 2010)

(quoting Trinity Prod., Inc. v. Burgess Steel, L.L.C., 486 F.3d 325, 335 (8th Cir. 2007)). 

“Minnesota [has] adopted a compensatory policy toward prejudgment interest awards by 

amending Minn. Stat. § 549.09, subd. 1 to provide prejudgment interest in most cases.” 

Id. (quoting Solid Gold Realty, Inc. v. Mondry, 399 N.W.2d 681, 683 (Minn. Ct. App. 

1987)). Where the parties’ contract sets a rate for prejudgment interest, such agreement 

controls. Minn. Stat. § 549.09(1)(b). Thus, CHS is entitled to interest at the contractual 

rate of 1.5% per month on all past-due amounts until the date of the judgment entered in 

this case.

Lastly, “[f]ederal law governs [the Court’s] analysis of postjudgment interest.” 

Travelers Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. of Am. v. Nat'l Union Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 735 F.3d 

993, 1007 (8th Cir. 2013). Postjudgment interest is mandatory under 28 U.S.C. § 1961. 

Id. 28 U.S.C. § 1961 also provides the method for calculating postjudgment interest. 

Accordingly, CHS is entitled to postjudgment interest as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1961

from the date the judgment is entered in this case until the date of payment.

8:23-cv-00168-JFB-SMB Doc # 17 Filed: 08/09/23 Page 3 of 4 - Page ID # 95
4

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, Filing No. 10, is granted.

2. Plaintiff is entitled to default judgment in the amount of $262,006.23 plus 

prejudgment and postjudgment interest as set forth in this order jointly and 

severally against Defendants, Valley View Feeders, Inc., and Ritch Blythe.

3. The Court will enter a separate judgment.

Dated this 9th day of August, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon

Senior United States District Judge

8:23-cv-00168-JFB-SMB Doc # 17 Filed: 08/09/23 Page 4 of 4 - Page ID # 96