Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 21, 2025

Guangzhou Jinshen Leather Co. v. Accessories Direct International USA

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:24-cv-00046
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureFee Petition
In one sentence

In Guangzhou Jinshen Leather v. Accessories Direct, Magistrate Judge Wang ordered plaintiffs to submit findings and damages materials for an inquest.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and the defendants identified in the order as the Defaulting Defendants, including their positions on damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and any request for an evidentiary hearing.

What happened

In Guangzhou Jinshen Leather Co., LTD v. Accessories Direct International USA, Inc., the court ordered the plaintiffs to prepare materials for deciding damages involving the Defaulting Defendants.

The plaintiffs must file proposed findings of fact and legal conclusions, an inquest memorandum proving damages, supporting evidence for their damages figures, and documentation for attorney’s fees and costs. They must serve the materials on the Defaulting Defendants and file proof of service. Any opposition is due May 23, 2025.

The court said it may decide the damages inquest using written submissions alone, while allowing a party to request an evidentiary hearing and explain why one is needed. Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang issued the order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Guangzhou Jinshen Leather Co. v. Accessories Direct International USA · No. 1:24-cv-00046
Judge
John Cronan
Date
Mar. 21, 2025

Order

The court directed the plaintiffs to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and an inquest memorandum explaining and proving their damages. The opinion refers to the defendants as the “Defaulting Defendants,” but it does not state that the court entered a default judgment or explain the underlying claims.

Required submissions

The plaintiffs’ proposed damages figures must be supported by documents and/or affidavits establishing those figures. The plaintiffs must also provide documentation supporting requested attorney’s fees and costs. The plaintiffs must serve the materials on the Defaulting Defendants and file proof of service on the docket.

Deadlines and hearing

The order states that the plaintiffs’ filings and service were due by April 25, 2025, although its first sentence refers to April 25, 2023. The order sets May 23, 2025, as the deadline for any opposition papers from the defendants. The court notified the parties that it may conduct the damages inquest solely through written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing must request one in its papers, explain why it is necessary, and describe the additional evidence to be presented.

Disposition

This is a procedural order directing submissions for an inquest; it does not decide the amount of damages in the text provided. Judge Ona T. Wang signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.