Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 6, 2025

Mediterranean Shipping Company Inc. v. Royal Halo LLC

Judge
Ricardo
Docket
1:24-cv-02292
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedureEvidenceFee Petition
In one sentence

In Mediterranean Shipping v. Royal Halo, Judge Ricardo required better evidence before deciding Plaintiff’s requested default damages and attorney’s fees.

Who this affects

Mediterranean Shipping Company (USA) Inc. must provide additional evidence supporting its requested damages, personal-jurisdiction allegations, and attorney’s fees before the court considers the requested final default judgment. Royal Halo LLC may respond to those submissions.

What happened

Mediterranean Shipping Company (USA) Inc. v. Royal Halo LLC concerns the plaintiff’s request for final judgment by default after a damages-inquest scheduling order. The plaintiff told the court it would rely on its earlier filings rather than submit new proposed findings.

The court found those filings inadequate to establish damages with reasonable certainty. It required authenticated copies of the invoices underlying the claimed $183,403.63, an authenticated executed bill of lading, and evidence supporting the requested attorney’s fees, including time records, attorney rates, and billing information.

Judge Henry J. Ricardo ordered the plaintiff to file the supporting evidence and proof of service by February 27, 2025. Royal Halo LLC could respond by March 13, 2025. The order warned that failing to provide adequate evidence would result in a recommendation against entering final judgment for the amount claimed.

The detailed version

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

Case
Mediterranean Shipping Company Inc. v. Royal Halo LLC · No. 1:24-cv-02292
Judge
Ricardo
Date
Feb. 6, 2025

Background

The court had previously entered a scheduling order for an inquiry into damages. That order directed Mediterranean Shipping Company (USA) Inc. to submit proposed findings about injunctive relief, damages, and other monetary relief allowed under the entry of default judgment, or to state that it would rely on its earlier submissions. The plaintiff notified the court that it would rely on those submissions.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that damages after a defendant’s default still must be supported by admissible evidence. The plaintiff’s earlier filings did not establish the requested damages with reasonable certainty.

The plaintiff relied on a declaration from Rick A. Steinberg and attached exhibits. The declaration identified Exhibit B as a statement of account used to calculate damages. The court questioned how Mr. Steinberg, who was outside counsel, had personal knowledge of the facts in that statement. The exhibit listed invoice dates, identification numbers, and balances totaling $183,403.63, but did not include the invoices themselves. The court required copies of the invoices, authenticated by someone with personal knowledge, showing the services that produced the claimed amount.

The court also required an authenticated copy of the executed bill of lading. The complaint stated that the bill of lading supported the plaintiff’s allegations concerning personal jurisdiction over Royal Halo LLC and jurisdiction over the subject matter. The court noted that it may examine whether it has personal jurisdiction over a defendant who has not appeared before granting default judgment.

The plaintiff also requested reasonable attorney’s fees. The court found that the plaintiff had not provided the required contemporaneous time records showing each attorney’s service dates, hours, and work performed. To support any fee award, the plaintiff had to provide an affidavit stating each attorney’s years of bar admission and hourly rate, along with appropriate fee charts and any spreadsheet calculations in Microsoft Excel format.

Order and Deadlines

The court ordered Mediterranean Shipping Company (USA) Inc. to file the required supporting evidence by February 27, 2025, and to file proof that it served Royal Halo LLC with the order and its response. Royal Halo LLC was directed to file any response by March 13, 2025. The court warned that failure to provide adequate evidence would result in a recommendation that final judgment not be entered for the amount claimed. The order did not itself enter final judgment or state that the plaintiff’s request was denied.

Judge Henry J. Ricardo issued the order as a United States magistrate judge.

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.