AND NOW, this 5th day of July, 2006, upon consideration of plaintiff's motion (Doc. 9) for default judgment, and of the order of court dated May 9, 2006 (Doc. 12), finding that service of the complaint has been effected on defendants (see Doc. 8), that defendants have not made an appearance in this case, see FED. R. CIV. P. 55(b)(2) (providing for notice and a hearing on motion for default only if adverse party has made an appearance), that a default has been entered against defendants for failure to plead or otherwise defend as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (see Doc. 11), see id. 55(a) ("When a party against whom judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend . . . the clerk shall enter the party's default."), and that the evidence of record demonstrates that defendants are liable to plaintiff for the sum of $88,276.72 pursuant to the terms a contract entered into by the parties (see Docs. 1, 3, 9), see Loeffler v. McShane, 539 A.2d 876, 879 n.3 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988) ("A corporate officer is . . . liable for the breach of any promises or representations which he extends not in his capacity as an officer but personally in his individual capacity."), but that the court could not determine the reasonableness of the attorney's fees or costs requested, see FED. R. CIV. P. 55(b)(2) ("If, in order to enable the court to enter judgment . . . it is necessary to take an account or to determine the amount of damages or to establish the truth of any averment . . . the court may . . . order such references as it deems necessary and proper . . . ."),*fn1 and upon further consideration of the order of court dated June 2, 2006 (Doc. 14), directing counsel for plaintiff to file, on or before June 26, 2006, supplemental documentation relevant to a determination of the reasonableness of the fees requested, including affidavits setting forth counsel's skills and experiences, and the rates prevailing in this community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation, see Interfaith Cmty. Org. v. Honeywell, 426 F.3d 694, 708 (3d Cir. 2005) ("[T]o determine the prevailing market rates in the relevant community, a court must assess the experience and skill of the . . . attorneys and compare their rates to the rates prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation."), and to address whether the amount requested is reasonable in light of the specific terms of the contract at issue and the brevity of these proceedings,*fn2 see, e.g., J. Schiffres, Annotation, Necessity of Introducing Evidence to Show Reasonableness of Attorneys' Fees where Promissory Note Provides for Such Fees, 18 A.L.R.3d 733 (2005); see also PNC Bank v. Bolus, 655 A.2d 997, 1000 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995); Jane Massey Draper, Excessiveness or Inadequacy of Attorney's Fees in Matters Involving Commercial and General Business Activities, 23 A.L.R.5th 241 (1994), and it appearing that counsel did not comply with the order of court,*fn3 it is hereby ORDERED that:
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter JUDGMENT in favor of plaintiff, Advanceme, Inc., and against defendants, 4301 Linglestown Rd., Inc., and Sean Barowski, in the amount of $89,265.85, consisting of the following amounts:
3. Post-judgment interest shall accrue from the date of this order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1961; see also, e.g., Skretvedt v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours, 372 F.3d 193, 217 n.32 (3d Cir. 2004).