IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

 

AMERICAN BUILDERS & 

CONTRACTORS SUPPLY CO., INC., 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

MASON RAY CONSTRUCTION 

LLC, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 No. 4:23-CV-01982 

 (Chief Judge Brann) 

 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FEBRUARY 9, 2024 

I. BACKGROUND 

This case was initially filed by Plaintiff, American Builders & Contractors 

Supply Co., Inc. (“American Builders”), against Defendants Mason Ray 

Construction LLC (“Mason Ray”) and Kyle Ditty on December 1, 2023.1

 Since 

then, the Defendants have failed to appear before this Court at all. Plaintiff moved 

for entry of default on January 10, 2024,2

 and default was subsequently entered by 

the Clerk of Court.3

 Plaintiff has now moved for default judgment.4 Still, the 

Defendants have refused to respond, and therefore the motion is now ripe for 

disposition. For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted. 

1

 See Doc. 1 (Compl.). 

2

 See Doc. 6 (Request for Entry of Default). 

3

 See Doc. 7 (Clerk’s Entry of Default). 

4

 See Doc. 8 (Motion for Default Judgment). 

Case 4:23-cv-01982-MWB Document 12 Filed 02/09/24 Page 1 of 12
2 

II. DISCUSSION 

A. Default Judgment is Warranted 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 allows the District Court to enter default 

judgment upon application by a party.5

 “Generally, the entry of a default judgment 

is disfavored, and a court is required to exercise sound judicial discretion in 

deciding whether to enter default judgment.”6

 “This element of discretion makes it 

clear that the party making the request is not entitled to a default judgment as of 

right, even when [the] defendant is technically in default and that fact has been 

noted under Rule 55(a).”7

 

The Court must consider three factors in deciding whether to grant default 

judgment: “(1) prejudice to the plaintiff if default is denied, (2) whether the 

defendant appears to have a litigable defense, and (3) whether [the] defendant’s 

delay is due to culpable conduct.”8

 “But when a defendant has failed to appear or 

respond in any fashion to the complaint, this analysis is necessarily one-sided; 

entry of default judgment is typically appropriate in such circumstances at least 

until the defendant comes forward with a motion to set aside the default judgment 

5

 FED. R. CIV. P. 55(b)(2). 

6

 Kibbie v. BP/Citibank, No. 3:CV-08-1804, 2010 WL 2573845, at *2 (M.D. Pa. June 23, 

2010) (Vanaskie, J.). 

7

 10A Charles Alan Wright and Arthur R. Miller, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, § 2685 

(Apr. 2020 Update). 

8

 Chamberlain v. Giampapa, 210 F.3d 154, 164 (3d Cir. 2000). 

Case 4:23-cv-01982-MWB Document 12 Filed 02/09/24 Page 2 of 12
3 

under Rule 55(c).”9 In cases where a defendant fails to appear, this Court may enter 

default judgment “based solely on the fact that the default has occurred.”10

The Court nevertheless considers those factors for the sake of completeness; 

in this case, they favor the grant of default judgment. First, Plaintiff would be 

prejudiced by their “current inability to proceed with [their] action due to 

Defendant[s’] failure to defend.”11 Mason Ray’s and Ditty’s decision to not appear 

before this Court prevents American Builders from recovering any damages. 

Similarly, the second factor points in Plaintiff’s favor. The “Defendants [have] not 

responded to the allegations and, thereby, [have] failed to assert a defense.”12

Finally, there does not seem to be any excuse for the Defendants’ failure to appear. 

Service was accepted on their behalf on December 19, 2023.13 Having received 

service, the Defendants have yet to respond. Because the Defendants have offered 

no explanation for their failure to engage, the Court finds that the Defendants are 

culpable.14 Therefore, default judgment is appropriate. 

9

 Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Strunz, Civ. No. 1:12-CV-01678, 2013 WL 122644, at *1 

(M.D. Pa. Jan. 9, 2013) (Kane, J.). 

10 Anchorage Assocs. v. Virgin Islands Bd. of Tax Review, 922 F.2d 168, 177 n.9 (3d Cir. 

1990). 

11 Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Kujo Long, LLC, No. 1:14-CV-00449, 2014 WL 4059711, at *2 

(M.D. Pa. Aug. 14, 2014) (Kane, J.). 

12 Pesotski v. Summa & Lezzi, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00221, 2017 WL 3310951, at *3 (M.D. Pa. 

Jan. 9, 2013) (Kane, J.). 

13 See Doc. 11 (Bernstein Declaration), Ex. B (Sheriff’s Return of Service). 

14 See Laborers Local Union 158 v. Shaffer, Civ. No. 1:CV-10-1524, 2011 WL 1397107 (M.D. 

Pa. Apr. 13, 2011) (Kane, J.). 

Case 4:23-cv-01982-MWB Document 12 Filed 02/09/24 Page 3 of 12
4 

A finding that default judgment is warranted, however, “is not the end of the 

inquiry.”15 First, the Court must consider whether the “unchallenged facts 

constitute a legitimate cause of action.”16 Although the defaulting party does not 

concede conclusions of law, “the factual allegations of the complaint, except those 

relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true.”17 Plaintiff’s complaint 

asserts breach of contract claims against the Defendants and an unjust enrichment 

claim against Mason Ray.18 The Court now considers whether the allegations in the 

complaint, taken as true, state a claim under those causes of action. 

B. Facts Alleged in the Complaint 

American Builders provides construction materials on credit to its 

customers.19 Mason Ray is a Pennsylvania limited liability company that is owned 

by Kyle Ditty.20 The present case stems from the Defendants involvement with a 

project at a Holiday Inn Express and their receipt of supplies from Plaintiff on 

credit.21 

Mason Ray “opened a credit account with the Plaintiff” and agreed “to the 

Plaintiff’s Credit Agreement” and the “Purchase Agreement Terms and Conditions 

15 Martin v. Nat’l Check Recovery Servs., LLC, Civ. No. 1:12-CV-1230, 2016 WL 3670849, at 

*1 (M.D. Pa. July 11, 2016) (Caldwell, J.). 

16 Broad. Music, Inc. v. Spring Mount Area Bavarian Resort, Ltd., 555 F. Supp. 2d 537, 541 

(E.D. Pa. 2008). 

17 Comdyne I, Inc. v. Corbin, 908 F.2d 1142, 1149 (3d Cir. 1990). 

18 See Doc. 1 (Compl.). 

19 See id. ¶ 3. 

20 See id. ¶¶ 4, 6. 

21 See id. ¶¶ 8, 12. 

Case 4:23-cv-01982-MWB Document 12 Filed 02/09/24 Page 4 of 12
5 

of Sale” on April 18, 2023.22 In doing so, Ditty also “personally guaranteed the 

payment of the goods and materials” that Mason Ray received.23 

Accordingly, American Builders proceeded to sell and deliver supplies to 

Mason Ray.24 An invoice was provided to the Defendants after each delivery.25 At 

no point did the Defendants ever dispute these invoices.26 

Section One of the Credit Agreement requires Mason Ray to pay each 

invoice and to pay a monthly late payment charge “at the rate of one and a half 

percent” each month on any overdue amounts.27 Further, Mason Ray agreed to pay 

American Builders’ “costs of collection, including attorney’s fees and costs 

incurred by the Plaintiff.”28 Additionally, the personal guaranty requires Ditty “to 

pay the Plaintiff’s costs of collection, legal expenses, and attorney’s fees” 

associated with collecting on Mason Ray’s “indebtedness” and “in enforcing the 

Personal Guaranty.”29 

By October 31, 2023, Mason Ray owed $79,075.59 for materials and 

$3,472.43 in late payment charges.30 Additional late payment charges have been 

22 Id. ¶ 9. 

23 Id. ¶¶ 10-11. 

24 See id. ¶ 13. 

25 See id. ¶ 15. 

26 See id. ¶ 20. 

27 Id. ¶ 16. 

28 Id. ¶ 17. 

29 Id. ¶ 18. 

30 See id. 

Case 4:23-cv-01982-MWB Document 12 Filed 02/09/24 Page 5 of 12
6 

accumulating since November 1, 2023.31 “Notwithstanding the Plaintiff’s demand 

for payment[,]” the Defendants have failed to pay the amount due to American 

Builders.32 

C. Plaintiff’s Claims 

American Builders’ Complaint brings three counts against the Defendants: 

two breach of contract claims and an unjust enrichment claim.33 The Court will 

analyze each of these causes of action in turn. 

1. Breach of Contract Claim Against Mason Ray 

Under Pennsylvania law,34 a claim for a breach of contract “contain[s] three 

[elements]: ‘(1) the existence of a contract, including its essential terms, (2) a 

breach of a duty imposed by the contract[,] and (3) resultant damages.’”35 “The 

Complaint adequately alleges all three elements of breach of contract.”36 “First, it 

alleges the existence and essential terms of a contract:”37 Mason Ray agreed to 

repay American Builders for the building supplies and any late payment fees.38

“Second, the Complaint alleges that” Mason Ray “breached the contract by” 

31 See id. ¶ 21. 

32 Id. ¶ 22. 

33 Id. ¶¶ 23-43. 

34 The Credit Agreement’s Governing Law provision provides that the “Agreement will be 

governed and construed and enforced in accordance with the procedural and substantive laws 

of the State where the action is brought.” See Doc. 1 (Compl.), Ex. B (Account Application). 

35 Udodi v. Stern, 438 F. Supp. 3d 293, 299 (E.D. Pa. 2020) (quoting Ware v. Rodale Press Inc., 

322 F.3d 218, 225 (3d Cir. 2003)). 

36 Id. 37 Id. 38 See Doc. 1 (Compl.) ¶ 16. 

Case 4:23-cv-01982-MWB Document 12 Filed 02/09/24 Page 6 of 12
7 

failing to pay.39 “Finally, the Complaint alleges that the breach resulted in 

damages; the loss of the” payment.40 As such, a breach of contract claim has been 

made out against Mason Ray. 

2. Unjust Enrichment Claim Against Mason Ray 

“A claim for unjust enrichment is ‘inapplicable when the relationship 

between the parties is founded on a written agreement or express contract.’”41

Unjust enrichment can only be pled in the alternative “‘when there is a dispute 

about the existence or validity of a contract.’”42 Since a valid contract existed, 

Plaintiff may not “proceed on a quasi-contractual claim like unjust enrichment.”43

“Instead, [American Builders] may only pursue [its] rights under the contract.”44 

3. Breach of Contract Claim Against Kyle Ditty 

Ditty’s breach of the personal guaranty is another breach of contract claim. 

American Builders has successfully made out the three elements of this cause of 

action: (1) a clearly defined contract existed;45 (2) Ditty did not fulfill the terms of 

39 Udodi, 438 F. Supp. 3d at 299; Doc. 1 (Compl.) ¶ 22. 

40 Id.; Doc. 1 (Compl.) ¶ 19. 

41 Holovich v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 600 F. Supp. 3d 572, 582 (E.D. Pa. 2022) 

(quoting Benefit Tr. Life Ins. Co. v. Union Nat’l Bank of Pittsburgh, 776 F.2d 1174, 1177 (3d 

Cir. 1985)). 

42 Id. at 583 (quoting Buccigrossi v. Thomas Jefferson Univ., Civ. A. No. 21-cv-221-JMY, 2022 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67135 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 12, 2022)). 

43 Id. at 584. 

44 Id. 45 See Doc. 1 (Compl.), Ex. A (Signed Agreement). 

Case 4:23-cv-01982-MWB Document 12 Filed 02/09/24 Page 7 of 12
8 

the personal guaranty upon Mason Ray’s failure to pay;46 and (3) damages are 

found in the amount owed by Mason Ray for the supplies and any late fees.47 

Consequently, the Court concludes that American Builders has established 

breach of contract claims against Mason Ray and Ditty. 

D. Damages 

Having found that Plaintiff has stated a legitimate cause of action, the Court 

considers the amount of damages Plaintiff is entitled to. Plaintiff seeks $91,762.93 

in damages.48 This figure includes the principal owed, late payment fees through 

October 31, 2023, late payment fees from November 1, 2023 through February 9, 

2024, and attorney’s fees and related costs.49 The Court will analyze each of these 

categories separately. 

1. Principal Amount Owed 

The principal balance of $79,075.59 can be found in the statement for 

Mason Ray’s account provided by Plaintiff.50 This is a certain sum that American 

Builders is therefore entitled to recover. 

 

46 See Doc. 1 (Compl.) ¶ 22. 

47 See id.

48 See Doc. 1 (Compl.) ¶ 21; Doc. 10 (Badillo Declaration) ¶ 14. 

49 See id. 50 See Doc. 10 (Badillo Declaration), Ex. 5 (Mason Ray Account Statement). 

Case 4:23-cv-01982-MWB Document 12 Filed 02/09/24 Page 8 of 12
9 

2. Late Fees Through October 31, 2023 

The late payment fees incurred through October 31, 2023 are similarly 

certain. Mason Ray’s account statement identifies $3,472.43 in late payment fees.51

Plaintiff is able to recover this amount as well. 

3. Late Fees from November 1, 2023 through February 9, 2024 

The late payment fees incurred from November 1, 2023 through February 9, 

2024 are also identifiable. A late payment fee of $39.00 per day is imposed.52

There are one-hundred-and-one days from November 1, 2023 through February 9, 

2024, inclusive. That means an additional $3,939.00 in late payment fees is owed 

to American Builders. 

4. Attorney’s Fees and Associated Costs 

“‘Pennsylvania law does not allow awards for attorney[‘s] fees in suits for 

ordinary breach of contract...unless there is express statutory authorization, a clear 

express agreement of the parties[,] or some other established exception.’”53 Here, 

there is clear agreement between the parties to provide for the payment of 

Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees.54 

51 See id. 52 See id.

53 Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Sunshine Trucking, LLC, Civ. No. 5:20-cv-04481-JMG, 2021 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 42507, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 8, 2021) (quoting Canters Deli Las Vegas, LLC v. 

FreedomPay, Inc., 460 F. Supp. 3d 560, 574 (E.D. Pa. 2020)). 

54 Both the Credit Agreement and the Personal Guaranty provide for the recovery of attorney’s 

fees and related costs. See Doc. 10 (Badillo Declaration), Ex. 2 (Credit Agreement). 

Case 4:23-cv-01982-MWB Document 12 Filed 02/09/24 Page 9 of 12
10 

In support of this motion, American Builders has provided invoices from its 

attorney to request $5,275.91 in attorney’s fees and associated costs.55 These 

invoices reflect the work performed for this case “and the related action to 

foreclose the Plaintiff’s Mechanics’ Lien Claim” pending in state court.56 

Before evaluating the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees, the Court 

must address whether American Builders is entitled to recover this full sum. “The 

party claiming entitlement to an award of [attorney’s] fees bears the burden of 

proving such entitlement.”57 Here, Plaintiff has “not proffered any relevant legal 

authority” to support the proposition that “a prevailing party in a federal lawsuit 

can be reimbursed for attorneys’ fees in a separate but related state court 

lawsuit.”58 Given this conclusion, the Court must first delineate the attorneys’ fees 

and associated costs that can be attributed to the prosecution of this case. 

Three categories emerge from these invoices: fees for this case, fees for the 

mechanics’ lien case, and fees where it is unclear which case they are attributed to. 

Based on these categories, the Court finds that American Builders has identified 

$3,594.00 in attorney’s fees and $510.31 in related costs that are specific to the 

55 See Doc. 10 (Badillo Declaration), Ex. 6 (Attorney Invoices). 

56 Doc. 11 (Bernstein Declaration) ¶ 9. 

57 Harris v. Vitran Express, Inc., No. 2:14-CV-00704-CRE, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136628, at 

*8-9 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 25, 2017) (citing Jones v. Muir, 515 A.2d 855 (Pa. 1986)). 

58 Id. at *9. 

Case 4:23-cv-01982-MWB Document 12 Filed 02/09/24 Page 10 of 12
11 

prosecution of this case.59 This leads to a total of $4,104.31 in recoverable 

attorney’s fees and related costs, depending upon the reasonableness of this figure. 

“In assessing a request for attorneys’ fees, ‘the most useful starting point for 

determining the amount of a reasonable fee is the number of hours reasonably 

expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.’”60 “An hourly 

rate is reasonable if the fee applicant demonstrates by evidence, in addition to the 

fee applicant’s own affidavit, that the suggested rate is comparable to the current 

‘rates prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably 

comparable skill, experience, and reputation.’”61 

To support its request for attorney’s fees, a declaration from Plaintiff’s 

attorney states that his “hourly rates are well within or below the range of hourly 

rates customarily charged by other law firms in the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania when representing plaintiffs in commercial collection actions....”62

The declaration also provides “a detailed accounting of the incurred fees and 

costs”63 and largely distinguishes between the expenses attributable to this case and 

those associated with the mechanics’ lien suit. Consequently, I conclude that the 

59 See Doc. 10 (Badillo Declaration), Ex. 6 (Attorney Invoices). 

60 Rey Logistics, Inc. v. Zlotshewer, Civ. A. No. 21-442, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177415, at *9 

(E.D. Pa. Sept. 28, 2023) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983)). 

61 Id. (quoting Maldonado v. Houstoun, 256 F.3d 181, 184 (3d Cir. 2001)). 

62 Doc. 11 (Bernstein Declaration) ¶ 12. 

63 Rey Logistics, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177415, at *10. 

Case 4:23-cv-01982-MWB Document 12 Filed 02/09/24 Page 11 of 12
12 

rates and hours that are attributable to the present suit are “fair and reasonable”64

and that American Builders is entitled to recover $4,104.31.65 

III. CONCLUSION 

The Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to an amount of $90,591.33. This 

represents $79,075.59 in principal, $3,472.43 in late payment fees incurred through 

October 31, 2023, $3,939.00 in late payment fees incurred from November 1, 2023 

through February 9, 2024, and $4,104.31 in attorney’s fees and related costs. 

An appropriate Order follows.

 BY THE COURT: 

s/ Matthew W. Brann 

 Matthew W. Brann 

 Chief United States District Judge 

64 Id. at *11. 

65 See Doc. 10 (Badillo Declaration), Ex. 6 (Attorney Invoices). 

Case 4:23-cv-01982-MWB Document 12 Filed 02/09/24 Page 12 of 12