TEK For Your Life, LLC v. Shine On, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
TEK FOR YOUR LIFE, LLC,
Plaintiff, 	Case No. 3:23-cv-228
vs.
SHINE ON, LLC, et al., 	District Judge Michael J. Newman
Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER: (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DAMAGES ON THE
DEFAULT JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 23); (2) AWARDING PLAINTIFF DEFAULT
JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $259,475.31 OWED
JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY; (3) AWARDING POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST FROM
THE DATE OF THIS ORDER AT THE APPLICABLE FEDERAL STATUTORY RATE
DISCUSSED IN THIS OPINION; AND (4) TERMINATING THIS CASE ON THE
DOCKET
_____________________________________________________________________________
On July 21, 2025, the Court granted a default judgment in Plaintiff TEK For Your Life’s
favor and against Defendants Shine On, LLC and its assignee and successor in interest,
Breckenridge Consulting, LLC due to Defendants’ failure to comply with two Court Orders to
obtain counsel to represent them in this civil case.1 Doc. No. 22; see Doherty v. Am. Motors Corp.,
728 F.2d 334, 340 (6th Cir. 1984) (“The rule of this circuit is that a corporation cannot appear in
federal court except through an attorney”). This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for
damages on the default judgment. 	Doc. No. 23. 	Defendants did not respond, and the time for
doing so has passed. S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2(a)(2). Thus, the motion is ripe for review.
1 Before entering default judgment against Defendants (Doc. No. 22), the Court placed them on notice that
if they did not obtain counsel to represent them in this case, default judgment may be entered against them.
Doc. No. 14 at PageID 151-52.
Case: 3:23-cv-00228-MJN-PBS Doc #: 24 Filed: 03/09/26 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
I.
“[W]hile liability may be shown by well-pleaded allegations, the district court must
conduct an inquiry in order to ascertain the amount of damages with reasonable certainty.” DT
Fashion LLC v. Cline, No. 2:16-cv-1117, 2018 WL 542268, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 24, 2018)
(quoting United States v. Parker-Billingsley, No. 3:14-cv-307, 2015 WL 4539843, at *1 (S.D.
Ohio Feb. 10, 2015)). A court may determine damages without holding an evidentiary hearing if
the damages are “capable of ascertainment from definite figures contained in the documentary
evidence or in detailed affidavits.” Parker-Billingsley, 2015 WL 4539843, at *1.
II.
Review of Plaintiff’s complaint reveals the following.2 	Plaintiff entered into seven
contracts with Defendants Shine On, LLC and/or Breckenridge Consulting to perform work at
seven job sites in six different states. Doc. No. 1 at PageID 3. Defendants promised to pay Plaintiff
for services rendered. 	Id. 	Plaintiff reasonably relied upon this promise, provided services to
Defendants, and submitted invoices as agreed to in the contracts. Id. at PageID 3-4; Doc No. 23-
1 at PageID 200-01. According to Plaintiff, three of the seven contracts have outstanding balances
owed by Defendants. Doc. No. 23-1 at PageID 200.
To support its damages award request, Plaintiff submitted an affidavit from its Chief
Executive Manager, Amanda K. Woolums, testifying that Defendants owe $259,475.31, including
unpaid invoices for work provided; money due from a cancelled contract; and accumulated interest
provided in the three outstanding contracts. 	Doc. No. 23-1 at PageID 200-17. 	Plaintiff has
provided a copy of the three contracts each executed by Corey Breckenridge, Defendants’ owner
2 Plaintiff previously filed two motions to amend its complaint and filed the proposed amended complaints
on the docket. See Doc. Nos. 11; 12; 20; 21. The Court denied both motions. Doc. Nos. 18; 22. The Court
confirms the original complaint, filed on August 10, 2023, remains the operative pleading. Doc. No. 1.
Case: 3:23-cv-00228-MJN-PBS Doc #: 24 Filed: 03/09/26 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
and sole member. Id. at PageID 203-14. Further, Plaintiff provided a copy of an itemized invoice
owed by Defendants. Id. at PageID 215-16. By way of Woolums’s affidavit, the attached exhibits,
and the unambiguous language of the contracts, Plaintiff has sufficiently proven its requested
damages in the amount of $259,475.31 “with reasonable certainty.” DT Fashion LLC, 2018 WL
542268, at *2.
III.
Plaintiff additionally requests an award of post-judgment interest, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1961, calculated from the default judgment date, July 21, 2025, until the date of payment. Doc.
No. 23 at PageID 199.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a), post-judgment interest is required “to be paid on money
awarded by district courts in civil actions.” CAPSA Sols., LLC v. Concord Healthcare Grp., LLC,
No. 2:18-CV-594, 2019 WL 4894038, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 4, 2019) (citations omitted). “The
district court has no discretion to deny post-judgment interest, as it is mandatory.” 	Id. (citing
Caffey v. Unum Life Ins. Co., 302 F.3d 576, 586 (6th Cir. 2002)). “Such 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 yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
for the calendar week preceding the date of the judgment.” 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a).
The Sixth Circuit has interpreted “judgment” to mean “any judgment that is not entirely
set aside.” Skalka v. Fernald Env’t Restoration Mgmt. Corp., 178 F.3d 414, 429 (6th Cir. 1999).
The general rule for determining which “judgment” starts the accrual of postjudgment interest is
that “postjudgment interest should begin to run once damages have been ‘ascertained’ in [a]
meaningful way.” Caffey, 302 F.3d at 588 (quoting Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno,
494 U.S. 827, 835-36 (1990)).
Case: 3:23-cv-00228-MJN-PBS Doc #: 24 Filed: 03/09/26 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to post-judgment interest at the applicable statutory rate
from the date of this Order—not the default judgment date—until the entire judgment is satisfied.
See Powell v. Divine Status, LLC, No. 2:23-CV-501, 2025 WL 415495, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 7,
2025) (finding that post-judgment interest began to accrue from the date the court awarded
damages and not the default judgment date).
IV.
Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment damages, therefore, is GRANTED. 	The Court
AWARDS Plaintiff judgment against Defendants in the amount of $259,475.31 owed jointly and
severally. 	The Court also AWARDS post-judgment interest from the date of this Order at the
applicable federal statutory rate set forth above. Finally, the Court TERMINATES this case on
the docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 9, 2026 	s/Michael J. Newman
Hon. Michael J. Newman
United States District Judge
Case: 3:23-cv-00228-MJN-PBS Doc #: 24 Filed: 03/09/26 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>