AMJ Global Entertainment, LLC v. Migom Global Corp.

Background

The court held a status conference on January 10, 2025, and ordered AMJ Global Entertainment, LLC to serve the order on Migom Global Corp. and Migom Bank LTD. The two defendants are referred to in the order as the “Defaulting Defendants.” The plaintiff complied with the service instruction. The defendants’ counsel had not filed notices of appearance by the date of this order.

The time for the defendants to respond to the complaint had passed. The plaintiff began seeking a certificate of default on January 6, 2025, and the Clerk of Court issued that certificate on January 7, 2025.

Order concerning default judgment

The court ordered the plaintiff to complete the process of requesting a default judgment by filing specified documents no later than March 4, 2025. A default judgment is a judgment entered against a defendant who has failed to respond, but the court stated that default alone does not establish that judgment should be entered.

The plaintiff must file a proposed order to show cause and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing:

- The basis for entering a default judgment, including how and when the summons and complaint were served and the relevant procedural history. - The basis for personal jurisdiction, meaning the court’s authority over the defendants. The court stated that it must be satisfied that it has personal jurisdiction before entering judgment or awarding relief. - The basis for subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s authority to hear the type of dispute involved. - The basis for the defendants’ liability on each cause of action. The proposed findings must identify the complaint’s specific factual allegations and explain why those allegations, taken as true after default, establish liability as a matter of law. - The basis and calculation of all damages and other monetary or non-monetary relief sought, including the exact dollar amount requested and the precise terms of any non-monetary relief.

The court warned that inadequate proof of service could result in denial of the plaintiff’s request for a default judgment.

Evidence and attorney fees

If the plaintiff seeks actual damages, rather than statutory or nominal damages, it must submit declarations or affidavits based on personal knowledge and any necessary authenticated documents. The evidence must be admissible, and each proposed factual finding must cite the supporting declaration paragraph or documentary page. The plaintiff must also explain how it calculated the damages and connect the requested damages to its legal claims.

Any request for attorney fees must include authenticated contemporaneous time records showing each timekeeper’s date of service, hours, hourly rate if applicable, and work performed. The plaintiff must also provide admissible evidence about each attorney’s background and qualifications and documentation of costs and expenses.

Service, response, and possible hearing

Before filing, the plaintiff must serve the proposed findings, supporting materials, and a copy of the order on the Defaulting Defendants by mail and email. The plaintiff must file proof of that service. The defendants were ordered to serve the plaintiff’s counsel and file any responses to the proposed findings and supporting materials by March 25, 2025.

The court stated that it may decide the default-judgment request and damages inquiry based only on the parties’ written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing must explain in its submissions why a written process is insufficient, identify the witnesses it would call, and describe the evidence to be presented.

Disposition

Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky ordered additional filings and set deadlines for the plaintiff’s submission and the defendants’ response. The order did not grant or deny the requested default judgment and did not decide liability or damages.