OEC Freight, Inc. v. Don Smith & Associates, Inc.
- Andrew Carter
- 1:23-cv-06299
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In OEC Freight v. Storlie Furniture, Judge Carter granted in part default judgment against DSA, denied it on unjust enrichment, and reserved damages.
OEC Freight (NY), Inc. obtained default judgment against Don Smith & Associates, Inc. on the breach-of-contract claim, but not on unjust enrichment. The amount of damages remained subject to further proceedings. The opinion does not resolve OEC’s claims against Storlie Furniture Distributors, LLC.
What happened
In OEC Freight (NY), Inc. v. Storlie Furniture Distributors, LLC and Don Smith & Associates, Inc., OEC claimed that DSA failed to pay 23 invoices for arranging furniture transportation under a credit agreement. DSA did not appear or defend the case, while the opinion does not decide OEC’s claims against Storlie.
OEC requested default judgment for breach of contract and, alternatively, unjust enrichment. It sought $930,738.13 in unpaid principal, interest under the contract, and additional interest under New York law. The court found that the written agreement governed the dispute, so unjust enrichment could not be recovered separately.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted in part and denied in part OEC’s motion for default judgment: he granted judgment against DSA on the breach-of-contract claim and denied judgment on unjust enrichment. He allowed contract-rate interest but denied additional statutory interest, and ordered further proceedings to address the correct damages calculation.
The detailed version
- OEC Freight, Inc. v. Don Smith & Associates, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-06299
- Andrew Carter
- June 6, 2025
Background
OEC Freight (NY), Inc., doing business as OEC Group, sued Storlie Furniture Distributors, LLC, doing business as Storlie Furniture Group, and Don Smith & Associates, Inc., doing business as Express Office Furniture. The claims relevant to this opinion were against DSA. OEC alleged that it entered into a credit agreement with DSA in 2013 to broker transportation of furniture from China to Kansas City, Missouri.
OEC later sent DSA 23 invoices dated between February 21 and August 11, 2022. The invoices provided 30-day payment deadlines. The agreement stated that DSA would owe collection costs, reasonable attorney fees, and interest of 1.5% per month, compounded daily and calculated from each invoice’s due date, if it failed to keep its account current. OEC alleged that DSA owed $930,738.13 in principal.
DSA did not appear or defend itself after being served with the complaints. The Clerk entered certificates of default, and OEC moved for default judgment on its breach-of-contract and unjust-enrichment claims.
Default-Judgment Standard
A default judgment requires two steps: the Clerk first enters a certificate of default, and the court then decides whether judgment should be entered. A defendant’s default admits well-pleaded allegations about liability, but it does not admit the amount of damages. The court must still determine whether the allegations establish legal liability and whether the requested damages are supported with reasonable certainty.
Liability
The court held that OEC established DSA’s liability for breach of contract. Applying New York law, the court found allegations establishing a contract, OEC’s performance by arranging transportation, DSA’s breach by failing to pay, and resulting damages. The court therefore granted default judgment against DSA on Count One, the breach-of-contract claim.
The court denied default judgment on Count Two, the unjust-enrichment claim. Because the court found that a valid written contract covered the dispute, an unjust-enrichment claim would duplicate the contract claim and could not provide a separate recovery.
Damages and Interest
The court found that the invoice records supported the principal amount of $930,738.13. It also held that OEC was entitled to interest under the contract’s rate of 1.5% per month, compounded daily, beginning on the due date of each invoice. Because the contract rate governed, the court denied OEC’s request for additional prejudgment interest under New York’s statutory rate.
The court did not accept OEC’s interest calculation as adequately supported. OEC claimed $177,457.31 in interest through June 12, 2023, but the court calculated $173,239.61 using the information in the record. The court stated that 725 additional days brought compounded interest through June 6, 2025, to $647,589.62 and the total damages to $1,578,327.75. Because that calculation differed from OEC’s original submission, the court gave OEC an opportunity to submit its methodology and alternative figures in response to a separate order to show cause.
Disposition
The court granted in part and denied in part OEC’s motion for default judgment as to liability. It granted default judgment against DSA on the breach-of-contract claim and denied default judgment on the unjust-enrichment claim. The court ordered further proceedings concerning damages and directed OEC to serve the opinion and order on DSA.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.