Abanda v. OurBloc LLC, 8:23-cv-01071

Plaintiffs alleged that Armel Tenkiang and affiliated companies conducted a fraudulent investment scheme involving unregistered cryptocurrency securities (HYSAs), commingled investor funds, and misappropriated money for personal use.
Plaintiffs entered contracts with CreditDap between 2021-2022, investing $10,000–$850,000 each, with contractual promises to repay the principal.
Defendants, including Tenkiang and several company defendants, failed to appear after service, resulting in default and subsequent default judgment for breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims, totaling $2,488,351.
Tenkiang moved to vacate the default judgment, claiming improper service and lack of involvement; plaintiffs opposed, stating Tenkiang had notice and the claims lacked merit.
Plaintiffs also moved for attorney fees under contractual provisions, seeking both hourly and contingency fees for successful prosecution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Vacatur of default judgment (Rule 60(b))	Tenkiang had notice, no meritorious defense, prejudice to P's	Improper service, delay excusable, has defenses	Denied: No meritorious defense, failure to show excusable neglect
Proper service and notice	Service at Delaware address valid, plus other evidence of notice	Address was outdated childhood home, did not receive notice	Found: Sufficient evidence Tenkiang had notice
Reasonableness of attorney fees (contractual)	Fee provision allows for recovery of reasonable fees/costs	No opposition to amount, defaulted on contesting fees	Granted in part: Reasonable hourly fees awarded, not full contingency
Applicability of contingency fee as basis	30% fee justified by difficulty and risk of collection	No argument, but court must assess reasonableness independently	Denied in part: Contingency fee not fully recoverable

United States v. Shaffer Equip. Co., 11 F.3d 450 (4th Cir. 1993) (strong policy favoring decisions on merits in default judgments)
Augusta Fiberglass Coatings, Inc. v. Fodor Contracting Corp., 843 F.2d 808 (4th Cir. 1988) (showing a meritorious defense requires evidence justifying finding for defaulting party)
Atl. Contracting & Material Co., Inc. v. Ulico Cas. Co., 844 A.2d 460 (Md. 2004) (contractual obligations to pay attorney fees are generally valid and enforceable in Maryland)
Monmouth Meadows Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Hamilton, 7 A.3d 1 (Md. 2010) (reasonableness of contractual attorney fee recoveries under Maryland law)
Venegas v. Mitchell, 495 U.S. 82 (1990) (reasonableness of fee shifting—courts decide fees recoverable by defendant, independent of plaintiff-counsel arrangement)