govinfo:USCOURTS-okwd-5_22-cv-00223-0

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 
 
 
ARKON SOLUTIONS, INC.,  ) 
 ) 
Plaintiff, ) 
 ) 
vs. )  Case No. CIV-22-223-C 
 ) 
PLATINUM CHEMICAL  ) 
CORPORATION, ) 
 ) 
Defendant. ) 
 
 
 ORDER 
 
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.  Although the time 
to respond has passed, Defendant has neither filed a response nor sought additional time to 
respond.  The Tenth Circuit has stated the procedure to be followed in this circumstance: 
To summarize, a party’s failure to file a response to a summary 
judgment motion is not, by itself, a sufficient basis on which to enter 
judgment against the party.  The district court must make the additional 
determination that judgment for t he moving party is “appropriate” under 
Rule 56.  Summary judgment is appropriate only if the moving party 
demonstrates that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled 
to judgment as a matter of law.  By failing to file a response within the time 
specified by the local rule, the nonmoving party waives the right to respond 
or to controvert the facts asserted in the summary judgment motion.  The 
court should accept as true all material facts asserted and properly supported 
in the summary judgment motion.  But only if those facts entitle the moving 
party to judgment as a matter of law should the court grant summary 
judgment. 
 
Reed v. Bennett, 312 F.3d 1190, 1195 (10 th Cir. 2002).  Following this standard, Plaintiff 
is entitled to entry of judgment in its favor. 
Case 5:22-cv-00223-G     Document 14     Filed 12/14/22     Page 1 of 3
 
 
2 
Plaintiff filed the present action asserting claim for breach of contract.  Plaintiff’s 
claim arises from its delivery to Defendant of certain products.  Attached to Plaintiff’s 
Motion are invoices for the product supplied.  Plaintiff has also provided an affidavit from 
its Chief Executive Officer stating the invoices are accurate business records of the 
transaction between the parties.  The affidavit further states that Defendant made only two 
payments which, when combined, equal $200.00.  The invoices submitted as exhibits total 
$823,486.57.   
To prevail on its breach of contract claim, Plaintiff must prove “formation of a 
contract; a breach of that contract; and actual damages suffered from that breach.”  Oltman 
Homes, Inc. v. Mirkes, 2008 OK CIV APP 64, ¶ 8, 190 P.3d 1182, 1185,  citing Digital 
Design Grp., Inc. v. Info. Builders, Inc., 2001 OK 21, ¶ 33, 24 P.3d 834, 843.  The materials 
attached to Plaintiff’s Motion establish there is no dispute of material fact as to each of 
these elements.  Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to judgement in the amount of 
$823,286.57 on its claim for breach of contract.   
Plaintiff also seeks to recover interest on the past due amounts.  The exhibits 
attached to the Motion establish the parties agreed to pay interest on any past due amounts 
at the rate of 18%.  Plaintiff avers the amount due as of the date of filing its Motion was 
$21,554.29, with additional interest accruing at the rate of $406.00 per day.  Judgment will 
be entered in Plaintiff’s favor on this issue.   
Case 5:22-cv-00223-G     Document 14     Filed 12/14/22     Page 2 of 3
 
 
3 
Finally, Plaintiff argues it is entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees pursuant to 12 
Okla. Stat. § 936 and costs pursuant to 12 Okla. Stat. § 928.  Plaintiff has established its 
entitlement to recover its attorneys’ fees and upon submission of a Motion properly 
submitted in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 54, attorneys’ fees will be awarded.  However, 
Plaintiff’s request for costs pursuant to § 928  will be denied.  Any award of costs is 
governed by federal law.  See  Stender v. Archstone-Smith Operating Tr., 958 F.3d 938, 
945 (10th Cir. 2020).   
As set forth more fully herein, the undisputed facts demonstrate Plaintiff is entitled 
to judgment.  Accordingly, Plaintiff ’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 12) is 
GRANTED.  A separate judgment will issue. 
IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of December 2022.   
 
 
Case 5:22-cv-00223-G     Document 14     Filed 12/14/22     Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight