Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 13, 2024

Walden Macht & Haran LLP v. Herrera Velutini

Judge
Naomi Buchwald
Docket
1:24-cv-00231
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
ContractCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Walden Macht v. Herrera Velutini, Judge Buchwald granted default judgment, awarding the firm $495,847.70 plus post-judgment interest.

Who this affects

Walden Macht & Haran LLP received a default judgment for $495,847.70 plus post-judgment interest. Julio Martin Herrera Velutini is the defendant against whom the judgment was entered.

What happened

Walden Macht & Haran LLP v. Julio Martin Herrera Velutini concerned the firm’s claim that Herrera Velutini promised to pay expenses from the firm’s legal representation connected to a Department of Justice investigation. The firm asserted claims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and account stated.

The court found that service was effective and that Herrera Velutini failed to respond, leading the Clerk to issue a certificate of default. After reviewing the firm’s invoices, declarations, interest calculations, and costs, the court found sufficient evidence to award $419,792.95 in unpaid bills, $75,132.61 in prejudgment interest, and $922.14 in costs.

Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald granted the firm’s motion for default judgment, awarded $495,847.70, allowed post-judgment interest, directed the Clerk to enter judgment, and closed the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Walden Macht & Haran LLP v. Herrera Velutini · No. 1:24-cv-00231
Judge
Naomi Buchwald
Date
Aug. 13, 2024

Background

Walden Macht & Haran LLP sued Julio Martin Herrera Velutini. The firm alleged that Herrera Velutini promised to pay the firm’s expenses for representing a client in connection with a U.S. Department of Justice investigation involving Herrera Velutini and the client. The complaint asserted claims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and account stated.

The court previously authorized alternative service after finding that the firm’s efforts to serve Herrera Velutini in the United Kingdom were sufficient to notify him of the lawsuit and give him an opportunity to respond. The firm later filed proof that the court’s order was delivered to and signed for at Herrera Velutini’s address. After he failed to respond, the Clerk issued a certificate of default.

The firm sought a default judgment for $419,792.95 in unpaid legal bills, prejudgment interest, additional interest, post-judgment interest, and $922.14 in costs.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that a defendant’s default accepts the complaint’s properly pleaded liability allegations, but does not establish the amount of damages. The plaintiff therefore still must provide evidence supporting the requested damages. A court may rely on a hearing or on detailed declarations and documents.

The court found that it had subject-matter jurisdiction, that service was effective, and that the complaint’s factual allegations established a breach of contract. The firm submitted declarations from its counsel with unpaid invoices totaling $419,792.95, a calculation of prejudgment interest at the applicable 9% annual rate, and documentation of $922.14 in costs.

Disposition

The court granted Walden Macht & Haran LLP’s motion for a default judgment. It awarded the firm $495,847.70, consisting of $419,792.95 in unpaid legal bills, $75,132.61 in prejudgment interest through August 13, 2024, and $922.14 in costs. The award also carries post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the firm and close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.