Scripps Media Inc. v. Cetus Corporation

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio
DecidedFebruary 25, 2025
Docket1:21-cv-00790
StatusUnknown

This text of Scripps Media Inc. v. Cetus Corporation (Scripps Media Inc. v. Cetus Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Scripps Media Inc. v. Cetus Corporation, (S.D. Ohio 2025).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

SCRIPPS MEDIA INC., : : Plaintiff, : Case No. 1:21-cv-790 : vs. : Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins : CETUS CORPORATION, : : Defendant. :

OPINION & ORDER

Plaintiff Scripps Media Inc. (“Scripps Media”) entered into an agreement with Defendant CETUS Corporation (“CETUS”) to provide advertising, production, and other related services. Scripps Media alleges that CETUS breached its contractual obligations by failing to make timely payments owed under that agreement. Compl., Doc. 1, ¶¶ 8–11. To date, CETUS has failed to appear or otherwise defend this action. For the reasons expressed below, Scripps Media’s motion for default judgment (Doc. 16) is GRANTED. I. LAW & ANALYSIS There is a two-step sequential process for obtaining default judgment. See Allied Consol. Enters. v. Aladwan, No. 2:20-cv-4561, 2021 WL 1572291, *2 (S.D. Ohio April 22, 2021). The party seeking this relief must first apply for an entry of default from the clerk.1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) (“When a party against whom a judgment is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default.”). Then, after the party obtains an entry of default, that party may request that default

1 An entry of default was entered in this case on July 13, 2023. See Doc. 10. judgment be entered. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). This can happen two ways: by the clerk or by the court. If the party’s claim is for a sum certain or a sum that may be ascertained by computation, the clerk may enter default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). In any other case, the party must seek default judgment from the court. Id. When considering an application for

default judgment, the court will accept the complaint’s factual allegations as true but must assess whether the factual allegations are legally sufficient to state the alleged cause of action. The moving party may prove the existence of damages through detailed affidavits or documentary evidence, or at an evidentiary hearing. Arthur v. Robert James Assocs. Asset Mgmt., No. 3:11-cv-460, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47240, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 13, 2012). For default judgment to be entered by a district court, the court first must be satisfied that it possesses both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the nonresponsive party. Answers in Genesis of Ky., Inc. v. Creation Ministries Int’l, Ltd., 556 F.3d 459, 465 (6th Cir. 2009)

(“[F]ederal courts have a duty to consider their subject matter jurisdiction in regard to every case.”); Citizens Bank v. Parnes, 376 F. App’x 496, 501 (6th Cir. 2010) (“Personal jurisdiction over a defendant is a threshold issue that must be present to support any subsequent order of the district court, including entry of the default judgment.”); Kuhlman v. McDonnell, No. 1:20- cv-510, 2022 WL 407240, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 10, 2022). If the jurisdictional prerequisite is met, then the court must weigh the factors articulated by the Sixth Circuit in Russell v. City of Farmington Hills, 34 F. App’x 196, 198 (6th Cir. 2002). Those factors are: (1) possible prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of the claims; (3) the sufficiency of the complaint; (4) the amount of money at stake; (5) possible disputed material facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect; and (7) the preference for decisions on the merits.

See also Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986). A. Scripps Media is entitled to default judgment. As a threshold matter, Scripps Media’s complaint properly invokes this Court’s jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because complete diversity exists between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Additionally, because CETUS consented to jurisdiction and venue in Ohio for disputes arising from the agreement through a forum selection clause, see Doc. 1, PageID 4, personal jurisdiction is proper. Preferred Capital, Inc. Power Eng’g Grp., Inc., 2007-Ohio-257, ¶ 6. Having established that this Court has both subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over CETUS, the Court will now weigh the factors set forth in Russell—starting first with whether Scripps Media has asserted sufficient and meritorious claims—the second and third Russell factors and saving for later discussion possible prejudice to Scripps Media. 1. Sufficient and Meritorious Claims The second and third factors in Russell relate to the merits of Scripps Media’s claims

and the sufficiency of Scripps Media’s complaint. Like other courts, this Court will consider these factors together. Scrips Media alleges three claims in its complaint: (1) breach of contract, (2) goods and services sold and delivered, and (3) unjust enrichment. See Doc. 1. Taking the factual allegations as true, this Court finds that Scripps Media’s complaint states a sufficient and meritorious claim against CETUS for breach of contract. However, as explained below, Scripps Media’s remaining claims fail as a matter of law. i. Count 1: Breach of Express Contract In its complaint, Scripps Media alleges a claim for breach of contract. Compl., Doc. 1, ¶¶ 8–11. Under Ohio law, a party has stated a breach of contract claim when there is: (1)

the existence of a contract, (2) performance by the plaintiff, (3) breach by the defendant, and (4) damage or loss to the plaintiff because of the breach. Mitchell v. Fujitec Am., Inc., No. 1:20- CV-363, 2022 WL 836424, *8 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 21, 2022) (quoting Johnson v. Delphi Corp., 261 F. Supp. 2d 955, 961 (S.D. Ohio 2003)). In this case, taking the facts stated in Scripps Media’s complaint as true, the parties entered into an agreement on or about November 11, 2020,

through which Scripps Media agreed to provide advertising, production and other related services, and in exchange, CETUS agreed to compensate Scripps Media for those services. Compl., Doc. 1, ¶¶ 8–11; Ex. A; Ex. B. Scripps Media alleges that, despite providing such services, CETUS failed to uphold its end of the bargain by timely compensating Scripps Media for the services rendered. Id. After CETUS failed to make good on payment, Scripps Media alleges that it suffered damages totaling $171,310.00, plus interest at a rate of 3% per year from June 17, 2021, and attorney fees and costs. Id. The Court finds that Plaintiff has therefore stated a sufficient and meritorious claim for breach of contract. ii. Count 2: Goods and Services Sold and Delivered

Scripps Media’s second claim relates to goods and services sold and delivered. Compl., Doc. 1, ¶¶ 12–13. As part of this claim, Scripps Media states in the complaint that it fully incorporates the allegations set forth in its breach of contract claim. The problem is that the Court has not been provided with a sufficient factual basis to discern any justiciable claim under the theory presented, and as the result the Court finds that the claim predicated on goods and services sold and delivered to be completely without merit. iii. Count 3: Unjust Enrichment Scripps Media’s third claim seeks relief based on unjust enrichment. Compl., Doc. 1, ¶ 14–15.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Citizens Bank v. Howard Parnes
376 F. App'x 496 (Sixth Circuit, 2010)
Gary R. Eitel v. William D. McCool
782 F.2d 1470 (Ninth Circuit, 1986)
Theresa Waldo v. Consumers Energy Company
726 F.3d 802 (Sixth Circuit, 2013)
Johnson v. Delphi Corp.
261 F. Supp. 2d 955 (S.D. Ohio, 2003)
Reed v. Rhodes
179 F.3d 453 (Sixth Circuit, 1999)
Russell v. City of Farmington Hills
34 F. App'x 196 (Sixth Circuit, 2002)
Bihn v. Fifth Third Mortgage Co.
980 F. Supp. 2d 892 (S.D. Ohio, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Scripps Media Inc. v. Cetus Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scripps-media-inc-v-cetus-corporation-ohsd-2025.