Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 23, 2024

Trustees of the Drywall Tapers and Pointers Local Union No.1974 Benefit Funds…

Full caption

Trustees of the Drywall Tapers and Pointers Local Union No.1974 Benefit Funds v. National Drywall Inc.

Judge
Gregory Woods
Docket
1:24-cv-01715
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
ErisaCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Trustees of the Drywall Tapers v. National Drywall Inc.: Judge Tarnofsky ordered plaintiffs to submit materials supporting a renewed default-judgment motion.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs seeking relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and National Drywall Inc., which had not answered the complaint or amended complaint.

What happened

In Trustees of the Drywall Tapers and Pointers Local Union No. 1974 Benefit Funds v. National Drywall Inc., the plaintiffs alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. National Drywall did not answer the complaint or amended complaint after being served.

The court directed the plaintiffs to seek a new certificate of default and file materials supporting a default-judgment motion by September 9, 2024. The materials must address the amount of damages, jurisdiction, liability, attorney fees, service on National Drywall, and whether the court should decide damages using written submissions alone.

Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky did not enter a default judgment in this order. Instead, she set requirements and deadlines for the plaintiffs’ requested default judgment and allowed National Drywall to respond by September 25, 2024.

The detailed version

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

Case
Trustees of the Drywall Tapers and Pointers Local Union No.1974 Benefit Funds… · No. 1:24-cv-01715
Judge
Gregory Woods
Date
Aug. 23, 2024

Background

The plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act on March 7, 2024. National Drywall was served on March 12, 2024, but did not answer by the April 2 deadline. The Clerk of Court issued a certificate of default on April 26, 2024.

The plaintiffs later obtained permission to file an amended complaint. They mailed the amended complaint to National Drywall’s last known business address on July 15, 2024. The opinion states that National Drywall was required to respond by August 5, 2024, but did not do so.

Order concerning default judgment

The court ordered the plaintiffs to seek a new certificate of default and file their motion for default judgment and supporting materials by September 9, 2024. The court did not grant or deny default judgment in this order.

The required proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law must address all damages and other monetary relief, and must state the exact amount and terms of any requested relief. For actual damages, the plaintiffs must provide admissible evidence sufficient to allow the court to determine the amount with reasonable certainty. Their proposed factual findings must identify the evidence supporting each finding and explain how the requested damages relate to each legal claim.

The plaintiffs must also establish that the court has personal jurisdiction over National Drywall and subject-matter jurisdiction over the action. The court warned that inadequate proof of service could result in denial of the request for a damages judgment. In addition, the plaintiffs must show that the complaint’s well-pleaded allegations, treated as true after default, establish National Drywall’s liability for each asserted claim.

Any request for attorney fees must include authenticated contemporaneous time records, information about each timekeeper’s work and qualifications, and evidence of costs and expenses. Before filing, the plaintiffs must mail National Drywall the proposed findings, supporting materials, and a copy of the order, then file proof of mailing.

National Drywall was permitted to serve and file any responses by September 25, 2024. The court stated that it may decide the damages inquiry based only on written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing must explain why written submissions are insufficient and identify the expected witnesses and evidence. Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky issued the order as a United States Magistrate Judge.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-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.