AIM Leasing Company v. UPG Enterprises, LLC et al.

PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
)
AIM LEASING COMPANY )
dba AIM NATIONALLEASE, )
) CASE NO. 4:24-CV-02164
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
)
UPG ENTERPRISES, LLC and )
BORRMANN METAL CENTER, INC., ) MEMORANDUM OF
) OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant. ) [Resolving ECF No. 21]
)
The Court considers Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b).
See ECF No. 21. Having reviewed all relevant filings, memoranda, and applicable law, the
Motion is granted for the reasons herein.
I. BACKGROUND
This dispute arises from a contract between corporations. Plaintiff AIM Leasing Co.
contends that Defendant Borrmann Metal Center, Inc. (assignee of Defendant UPG Enterprises,
LLC) failed to pay Plaintiff for vehicles leased, services rendered, and maintenance performed
under contract. See ECF No. 1–1 at PageID ##: 9–13 ¶¶ 1–29. The Clerk of Court having
already entered default due to Defendant Borrmann’s failure to appear (ECF No. 18), the Court
now weighs the entry of judgment and the extent of damages.
Case: 4:24-cv-02164-BYP Doc #: 42 Filed: 12/22/25 1 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

(4:24-CV-02164)
2
II. DISCUSSION
A. DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT
When a defendant fails to plead or otherwise defend a civil suit and that failure is shown
by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk shall enter default against them. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a).
The entry of default establishes liability only for the well-pled allegations in the complaint. See
Antoine v. Atlas Turner, Inc., 66 F.3d 105, 110 (6th Cir. 1995). In claims for sums uncertain, the
plaintiff must subsequently move for relief via default judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2).
This dispute was removed from state court. See ECF No. 1. Defendant Borrmann chose
not to participate in this federal lawsuit, leading to the entry of default. See ECF Nos. 1–1 at
PageID ##: 5–8 and 18. Since removal, Defendant Borrmann’s (now former) counsel received
no communication, documentation, or assistance from their client, prompting their subsequent
withdrawal with leave of Court. See ECF Nos. 28 at PageID #: 156 and 32. Defendant
Borrmann was ordered to obtain new counsel no later than October 16, 2025.1 See ECF No. 32
at PageID #: 188. It disobeyed that mandate.2 See AIM Leasing Co. v. UPG Enterprises, et al.,
No. 4:24-CV-02164 (N.D. Ohio filed Dec. 12, 2024). Having failed to answer (ECF No. 1),
suffered default (ECF No. 18), and failed to comply with a lawful order (ECF No. 32), default
judgment is now warranted against Defendant Borrmann under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2).
1 As an incorporated entity, Defendant Borrmann cannot proceed pro se. See ECF No. 32
at PageID #: 188 ¶ 2.
2 Defendant Borrmann was instructed that “failure . . . to obtain new counsel and have
filed a Notice of Appearance by [October 16, 2025] will result in the Court granting Plaintiff's
pending Motion for Default Judgment . . . without further notice or hearing.” See ECF No. 32 at
PageID #: 188.
Case: 4:24-cv-02164-BYP Doc #: 42 Filed: 12/22/25 2 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

(4:24-CV-02164)
3
B. BREACH OF CONTRACT
Even when victorious on default judgment, a litigant must prove the existence and extent
of damages. See Antoine, 66 F.3d at 110. To prove the breach of contract claim herein, Plaintiff
must show: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) contractual performance by Plaintiff; (3)
contractual breach by Defendant Borrmann; and (4) damages or loss therefrom. See In re Fifth
Third Early Access Cash Advance Litig., 925 F.3d 265, 276 (6th Cir. 2019). In support of its
motion, Plaintiff provided the original contract, its assignment contract, the sworn declaration of
its chief operating officer, fixed charge calculation tables, receipts, invoices, and various leasing
schedules. See ECF No. 21–1 at PageID ##: 88–109. Having already found default judgment
appropriate, the Court concludes that these well-pled allegations establish Defendant Borrmann’s
uncontested liability to Plaintiff for breach of contract with sum certain damages.
Plaintiff and Defendant UPG entered a valid contract (the “Vehicle Service Lease and
Addendum”) under which Plaintiff provided vehicular leases, maintenance, and services. See
Vehicle Servs. Lease, ECF No. 1–1 at PageID ## 16–24. That contract was later assigned––in
part––by Defendant UPG to Defendant Borrmann (the “Assignment of Lease Agreement.”) See
Lease Assign., ECF No. 1–1 at PageID ##: 26–29. Plaintiff performed their legal obligations by
leasing, maintaining, and servicing vehicles to and for Defendant Borrmann. See Leased
Vehicles Table, ECF No. 1–1 at PageID #: 29 and Svancara Decl., ECF No. 21–1 at PageID ##:
88–91 ¶¶ 1–12. Defendant Borrmann did not pay either the agreed amounts or the fixed charges
accruing from repossession.3 See Leased Vehicles Table, ECF No. 1–1 at PageID #: 29 and
3 At the time of default, Defendant Borrmann still leased at least four vehicles from
Plaintiff. See July 2024 Invoice, ECF No. 21–1, Ex. D–1; August 2024 Invoice, ECF No. 21–1,
Ex. D–2; September 2024 Invoice, ECF No. 21–1, Ex. D–3; October 2024 Invoice, ECF No. 21–
1, Ex. D–8.
Case: 4:24-cv-02164-BYP Doc #: 42 Filed: 12/22/25 3 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

(4:24-CV-02164)
4
Svancara Decl., ECF No. 21–1 at PageID ##: 90 ¶¶ 8–9, 91 ¶¶ 11–12. Plaintiff’s unopposed
filings confirm that Defendant Borrmann is liable for breach of contract in the sum certain
amount of $764,374.28 comprised of $30,774.28 in unpaid invoices and $733,600.00 in unpaid
fixed charges. See ECF No. 21–1 at PageID #: 92–109.
III. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 21) is granted.4 Judgment shall be
entered in favor of Plaintiff AIM Leasing Co. and against Borrmann Metal Center, Inc. in the
amount of $764,374.28, plus pre-judgment interest at a rate of 1.5 percent per month from
November 1, 2024 and post-judgment interest at the federal statutory rate under 28 U.S.C. §
1961 from the entry of default judgment until the entire amount is satisfied.5 A separate entry of
judgment shall issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
December 22, 2025 /s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Date Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
4 This Order does not bind Defendant UPG Enterprises.
5 Plaintiff does not seek attorney fees from Defendant Borrmann. See ECF No. 21–2 at
PageID #: 110.
Case: 4:24-cv-02164-BYP Doc #: 42 Filed: 12/22/25 4 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>