AirPro Diagnostics, LLC v. Drew Technologies, Incorporated et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
AIRPRO DIAGNOSTICS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
DREW TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
OPUS IVS, INC., AUTOENGINUITY, LLC,
and BRIAN HERRON, 	Case No. 22-cv-12969
Honorable Linda V. Parker
Defendants.
and
OPUS IVS, INC.,
Counter-Plaintiff,
v.
AIRPRO DIAGNOSTICS, LLC,
Counter-Defendant.
____________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO HOLD ATTORNEYS’
FEES AND COSTS MOTION IN ABEYANCE (ECF NO. 72) AND
DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
AND COSTS (ECF NO. 67)
Following the entry of a Judgment in this matter on September 29, 2025
(ECF No. 66), Counter-Plaintiff Opus IVS, Inc. (“Opus”) filed a motion for
attorneys’ fees and costs against Counter-Defendant AirPro Diagnostic Services,
Case 2:22-cv-12969-LVP-EAS ECF No. 73, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/12/25 Page 1 of 3

2
LLC (“AirPro”) (ECF No. 67). AirPro responded to the motion (ECF No. 71) but
also filed a motion to stay (ECF No. 72) a ruling on Opus’ request for fees and
costs pending the outcome of AirPro’s appeal of the Court’s summary judgment
decision. AirPro indicates that Opus consents to the stay. (ECF No. 72 at
PageID.3006.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(B) provides that “[u]nless a statute
or a court order provides otherwise,” a motion for attorney’s fees must be filed “no
later than 14 days after entry of judgment[.]” The advisory committee notes to the
1993 amendment of the rule provides that “[i]f an appeal on the merits is taken, the
court may rule on the claim for fees, may defer its ruling on the motion, or may
deny the motion without prejudice, directing . . . a new period for filing [the
motion] after the appeal has been resolved. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d), advisory
committee’s notes to 1993 amendment. If the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
reverses this Court’s ruling on Opus’ counterclaim, its motion for attorney’s fees
and costs will be rendered moot. It is not an efficient use of the parties’ or the
Court’s resources to litigate and adjudicate the issue of attorney’s fees and costs
until the appeal is resolved.
Therefore, the Court is GRANTING AirPro’s unopposed motion (ECF No.
72) to hold the issue of attorney’s fees and costs in abeyance pending the Sixth
Circuit’s decision on appeal. The Court is DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Case 2:22-cv-12969-LVP-EAS ECF No. 73, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/12/25 Page 2 of 3

3
Opus’ motion for attorney’s fees and costs (ECF No. 67). The Court will set a
status conference after the appellate proceedings are concluded to assess whether a
new briefing schedule for any motion for fees and costs is necessary.
SO ORDERED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: November 12, 2025
Case 2:22-cv-12969-LVP-EAS ECF No. 73, PageID.<pageID> Filed 11/12/25 Page 3 of 3