Bielefeldt v. Gro Intelligence, Inc.

Purpose of the Order

This was a scheduling order for an inquiry into damages after Judge John G. Koeltl had entered a default judgment as to liability in favor of Jake Bielefeldt and Simon Firestone and against Gro Intelligence, Inc. The order did not determine the amount of damages or enter a damages judgment.

Required Submissions

The plaintiffs had to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning all requested damages and other monetary relief by December 12, 2024. Their submission had to state the exact amount of monetary relief sought and the precise terms of any requested non-monetary relief.

If the plaintiffs sought actual damages, rather than statutory or nominal damages, they had to support the request with declarations or affidavits and any necessary documentary evidence. The evidence had to be admissible. Each proposed factual finding had to cite the supporting declaration or document, and the submission had to explain how the plaintiffs calculated the requested damages and connect those damages to their legal claims.

The order also required any request for attorneys’ fees to include authenticated, contemporaneous time records identifying the date of service, time spent, hourly rate when applicable, and work performed by each timekeeper. The plaintiffs also had to provide evidence concerning the attorneys’ backgrounds and qualifications and documentation of costs and expenses.

Jurisdiction and Liability

The court stated that, even after a default, it had to be satisfied that it had personal jurisdiction over Gro Intelligence, Inc. and subject matter jurisdiction over the action. The plaintiffs were warned that failure to adequately establish service could result in denial of their request for a damages judgment.

The court also stated that the proposed legal conclusions had to show, by reference to specific allegations in the complaint, that the allegations were legally sufficient to establish Gro Intelligence, Inc.’s liability on each cause of action. Thus, the order required submissions addressing jurisdiction, service, and the legal sufficiency of the liability allegations before a final damages judgment could be entered.

Service, Opposition, and Hearing

Before filing, the plaintiffs had to mail their proposed findings, supporting materials, and a copy of the order to the defendant at its last known address and file proof of service. The order stated that the defendant’s responses, if any, were due January 6, 2024. The text therefore contains a date that precedes the order’s November 12, 2024 date.

The court notified the parties that it might conduct the damages inquiry solely from written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing had to explain why written submissions would not be sufficient and describe the witnesses and evidence that would be presented. The order also allowed the plaintiffs to rely on earlier filings if they identified the relevant requirement and the specific docket entries and pages by letter filed by December 12, 2024.

Disposition

The court issued procedures for the damages inquiry following the earlier default judgment as to liability. Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky did not award damages, decide the amount of attorneys’ fees, or enter a final damages judgment in this order.