Streets v. Mangena
- Analisa Torres
- 1:23-cv-10648
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Streets v. Mangena, Judge Aaron ordered a submission supporting Plaintiff’s possible request for attorneys’ fees.
The order affects Plaintiff Theodosia Billie Streets and her counsel by requiring a supplemental submission if Streets seeks attorneys’ fees. It also concerns Defendants Daniel Mangena a/k/a Lindani Mangena and Dreamer HQ Inc., although the order does not decide the default-judgment motion.
What happened
In Streets v. Mangena, Theodosia Billie Streets asked the court to enter a default judgment and requested attorneys’ fees. The opinion does not state the court’s decision on the default-judgment motion.
The court ordered Streets’s counsel to file a supplemental submission by January 28, 2025, if Streets believed applicable law allowed attorneys’ fees. The submission must include time records, each attorney’s years of bar admission, and hourly rates.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron issued the order on January 14, 2025. The order did not decide whether Streets was entitled to attorneys’ fees.
The detailed version
- Streets v. Mangena · No. 1:23-cv-10648
- Analisa Torres
- Jan. 14, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Theodosia Billie Streets filed a motion for a default judgment against Daniel Mangena, also known as Lindani Mangena, and Dreamer HQ Inc. The court reviewed that motion and noted Streets’s request for attorneys’ fees.
Order
The court ordered that, if Streets believed applicable law entitled her to attorneys’ fees, her counsel had to file a supplemental submission by January 28, 2025, explaining the legal basis for the request. The submission had to include contemporaneous time records identifying, for each attorney, the date of service, hours worked, and the nature of the work. Counsel also had to provide each attorney’s number of years admitted to the bar and hourly rate.
The court cited the general rule that attorneys’ fees ordinarily cannot be recovered without a statute or enforceable contract authorizing them. The opinion did not decide whether Streets was entitled to fees, and it did not state a disposition of the default-judgment motion.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it addresses an attorneys’ fee submission, an issue ancillary to the underlying dispute, rather than deciding the merits of the claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.