Aerotek, Inc. v. City Electric Service, Inc.

[1]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
:
Aerotek, Inc., :
: Case No. 2:25-cv-00336
Plaintiff, :
v. : Judge Graham
:
City Electric Service, Inc., : Magistrate Judge Deavers
:
Defendant. :
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s third motion for default
judgment. Doc. 13. The Clerk filed an entry of default on June 12, 2025. Doc. 8. In
this contract-based dispute, Aerotek seeks a judgment for actual damages under the
contract, attorney fees and costs, and postjudgment interest at the federal statutory
rate on the entire judgment awarded. Doc. 14, # 176.
In examining a motion for default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2), the
Court accepts plaintiff’s well-pled allegations as to a defendant’s liability as true.
Antoine v. Atlas Turner, Inc., 66 F.3d 105, 110 (6th Cir. 1995). The court reviews “the
pleadings as a whole to determine whether a sufficient basis exists entitling Plaintiff
to judgment pursuant to Rule 55(b).” United States v. Allen, No. 2:12-CV-1034, 2014
WL 5305518, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 15, 2014) (quoting Nishimatsu Construction Co.,
Ltd. v. Houston National Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975)) (internal
quotations omitted).
According to the complaint, Aerotek provides recruitment and staffing services
to other businesses, such as Defendant City Electric Service, Inc. (“City Electric”).
Case: 2:25-cv-00336-JLG-EPD Doc #: 15 Filed: 12/19/25 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

[2]
Doc. 1, ¶ 8. Aerotek and City Electric entered into a contract (attached to the
complaint as doc. 1-1) pursuant to which City Electric was to pay Aerotek in
consideration for “services rendered by contract employees.” Id. at ¶¶ 9-11.
Additionally, the contract provided for a late charge of 1% per month on the amount
of the past due balance, and that City Electric would pay all of Aerotek’s expenses
incurred for collecting any defaulted payments, including reasonable attorney fees.
Doc. 1, ¶ 17; doc. 1-1, # 10. The contract further provided that Maryland law applied
as to any disputes arising from the contract. City Electric did not pay for certain
services provided between August 2024 and November 2024. Id. at ¶ 18. The Court
finds that the foregoing allegations establish a sufficient basis entitling Aerotek to
judgment pursuant to Rule 55(b).
The Court may enter an award without a hearing when a plaintiff’s claim is
“for a sum certain or a sum that can be made certain by computation.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
55(b)(1). Aerotek has submitted documentation supporting the amounts for which
City Electric is liable and have also submitted documentation supporting the amount
of attorney fees and court costs. See docs. 12-1 through 12-5. Therefore, the amounts
owed under the contract (including late fees) are thoroughly documented, totaling
$202,985.31 in actual damages. The Court finds this claim to be for a “sum certain.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1).
Aerotek also seeks attorney fees and costs in the amount of $19,317. As noted,
the contract between the parties entitles Aerotek to “court costs and reasonable
attorney fees.” Doc. 1-1, # 10. Aerotek has established court costs in the amount of
Case: 2:25-cv-00336-JLG-EPD Doc #: 15 Filed: 12/19/25 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

[3]
$405 for the filing fee and $190 for the process server. Doc. 14-5. And Aerotek has
submitted billing records and a supporting affidavit showing $18,722.00 of attorney
fees billed in this matter. Doc. 14-3; doc. 14-4.
Under Maryland law, when determining the reasonableness of attorney fees,
courts are directed to consider factors set forth in Rule 1.5(a) of the Maryland
Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct. Monmouth Meadows Homeowners Ass'n.,
Inc. v. Hamilton, 416 Md. 325, 336-37, 7 A.3d 1, 8 (2010). However, a court need not
make explicit findings as to the listed factors, nor even mention Rule 1.5, “as long as
it utilizes the rule as its guiding principle in determining reasonableness.” Id. at 340,
n.13. Nevertheless, the rule sets out the following factors to be considered:
(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty
of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to
perform the legal service properly;
(2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the
acceptance of the particular employment will preclude
other employment of the lawyer;
(3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar
legal services;
(4) the amount involved and the results obtained;
(5) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the
circumstances;
(6) the nature and length of the professional relationship
with the client;
(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or
lawyers performing the services; and
(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent.
Id. at 336, n.10 (quoting Md. Lawyers' R. Prof'l Conduct 1.5(a)).
Based on the factors above, and Aerotek’s supporting materials, the Court is
satisfied that the amount of attorney fees requested is reasonable. Though this case
Case: 2:25-cv-00336-JLG-EPD Doc #: 15 Filed: 12/19/25 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

[4]
involved simple legal issues—an uncontested breach of contract suit based on unpaid
invoices—the billing records reveal efforts from counsel to collect the amounts owed
before commencing litigation. Overall, counsel for Aerotek expended 34.1 hours in
this matter at an average billing rate of $549.03/hr. See doc. 14-3. Aerotek did not
submit materials which would permit the Court to consider how the billing rates
compare with those in the same locality for similar legal services. However, the Court
is nevertheless satisfied that the requested attorney fees are reasonable in light of
the results obtained and the experience and ability of Aerotek’s counsel.1 Therefore,
the Court concludes that the requested award of attorney fees and costs is appropriate
and hereby grants the same.
CONCLUSION
The Court finds, upon the materials before it, that Aerotek is entitled to
judgment in the amount of $202,985.31 in contractual damages. Additionally, the
Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of court costs and litigation fees in
the amount of $595.00, and an award of attorney fees in the amount of $18,722.00.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Aerotek’s motion for default judgment. Doc. 14.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ James L. Graham
JAMES L. GRAHAM
United States District Judge
DATE: December 19, 2025
1 The Court notes that Aerotek has (appropriately) refrained from seeking to recover any
attorney fees incurred by time spent curing the deficiencies which the Court identified in
Aerotek’s two (2) previous motions for default judgment. See docs. 10, 11, 12, and 13.
Case: 2:25-cv-00336-JLG-EPD Doc #: 15 Filed: 12/19/25 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>