Reyes v. DC White Plains LLC
- Philip Halpern
- 7:24-cv-09522
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Reyes v. DC White Plains LLC, Judge Halpern declined to sign plaintiffs’ proposed order because their damages submission lacked required personal-knowledge support.
The plaintiffs’ request for default judgment was not advanced because the court found their damages submission procedurally inadequate. The plaintiffs may submit a compliant filing by May 23, 2025; the order did not decide the request or any damages.
What happened
In Reyes v. DC White Plains LLC, the plaintiffs asked the court to begin the process for entering a default judgment against the defendants. The court had previously told them to provide a damages statement meeting a local court rule.
The rule requires a damages statement sworn or affirmed by someone with personal knowledge, explaining the proposed damages and the basis for each part, including interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. The plaintiffs instead submitted a declaration from their attorney about a damages chart. The court found that the attorney’s hearsay declaration did not satisfy the rule.
Judge Philip M. Halpern declined to sign the proposed order to show cause. He allowed the plaintiffs to supplement their filings by May 23, 2025, and stated that, after a proper and complete submission, the court would take their request for default judgment under advisement.
The detailed version
- Reyes v. DC White Plains LLC · No. 7:24-cv-09522
- Philip Halpern
- May 13, 2025
Background
On May 5, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a proposed order to show cause without emergency relief seeking to begin the process for entering a default judgment against Defendants. The Court declined to sign that proposed order because the application did not comply with Local Rule 55.2(c).
That rule requires a party seeking default judgment to file a damages statement sworn or affirmed by one or more people with personal knowledge. The statement must show the proposed damages and the basis for each element of damages, including interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. The Court directed Plaintiffs to supplement their earlier filings by May 13, 2025.
The Supplemental Filing
On May 12, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a supplemental declaration from their attorney. The declaration purported to attest to the facts in a damages chart attached to Plaintiffs’ earlier submission.
The Court held that counsel’s declaration was hearsay and was not a substitute for a party’s personal knowledge. It therefore did not comply with Local Rule 55.2(c), which prevented the Court from independently assessing the damages that might be awarded at that time.
Ruling and Effect
The Court declined to sign the proposed order to show cause. It permitted Plaintiffs to supplement their earlier filings to comply with Local Rule 55.2(c) by May 23, 2025. The Court stated that, upon an appropriate and complete submission by that date, it would take Plaintiffs’ request for entry of default judgment under advisement.
The order did not decide whether default judgment should be entered or determine the amount of any damages.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.