Insured Advocacy Group, LLC v. Tarp Solutions, LLC

Background

On February 26, 2025, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer entered a default judgment against Tarp Solutions, LLC and Christian Santana, identified in the order as the “Defaulting Defendants.” The same day, Judge Engelmayer referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky to conduct an inquest—a court review—to determine the appropriate damages.

Required submissions

The order directs Insured Advocacy Group, LLC to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by March 24, 2025. Those submissions must explain:

- the method and date of service of the summons and complaint and the procedural history beyond service; - the basis for the court’s personal jurisdiction over the defaulting defendants; - the basis for subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the action; - why the complaint’s well-pleaded allegations, taken as true after default, establish the defendants’ liability for each asserted claim; and - the basis and calculation of all requested damages and other monetary or non-monetary relief.

The order warns that inadequate proof of service could result in denial of the plaintiff’s request for a default judgment against the defaulting defendants. It also requires the plaintiff to state by March 6, 2025, whether it intends to rely on earlier filings and, if so, to identify the relevant docket entries and pages.

Evidence and attorneys’ fees

If the plaintiff seeks actual damages, rather than statutory or nominal damages, it must submit admissible evidence sufficient to allow the court to determine the amount with reasonable certainty. Declarations or affidavits based on personal knowledge may authenticate supporting documents. Each proposed factual finding must cite the supporting declaration paragraph or documentary page, and the submissions must connect the claimed damages to the relevant legal claims.

Any request for attorneys’ fees must include authenticated, contemporaneous time records identifying each timekeeper, the date of service, hours worked, hourly rate when applicable, and work performed. The plaintiff must also provide admissible evidence concerning each timekeeper’s identity, background, and qualifications, along with documentation of costs and expenses.

Service, responses, and disposition

Before filing, the plaintiff must serve the defaulting defendants by mail and email with its proposed findings, supporting materials, and a copy of the order. The plaintiff must file proof of that service. The defaulting defendants must serve the plaintiff’s counsel and file any responses by April 14, 2025.

Judge Tarnofsky stated that the damages inquest may be conducted solely on written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing must explain why written submissions are insufficient, identify the witnesses it would call, and describe the evidence it would present. This order sets requirements and deadlines for the damages review; it does not determine the amount of damages.