Spinelli v. Boucher

Background

On August 8, 2025, Judge Ronnie Abrams entered a default judgment against Defendant Brian Boucher. On August 12, 2025, Judge Abrams referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky for an inquest—a proceeding to determine the appropriate damages after a default judgment.

Required submissions

The order directed Plaintiffs to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by September 3, 2025. Those materials had to address:

- The basis for the default judgment, including the method and date of service and the later procedural history. The court stated that Plaintiffs had to establish personal jurisdiction over Boucher and warned that inadequate proof of service could result in denial of the request for a default judgment against him. - The basis for subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the action. - The factual and legal basis for Boucher’s liability on each asserted cause of action. The court explained that, after a default, the complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations are treated as true, but Plaintiffs still must show that those allegations establish liability as a matter of law. - The basis and calculation of all damages and other monetary or non-monetary relief. The filing had to state the exact dollar amount and the precise terms of any non-monetary relief sought.

Evidence and attorneys’ fees

If Plaintiffs sought actual damages, they had to provide admissible declarations or affidavits based on personal knowledge, along with authenticated documentary evidence when needed. Each proposed factual finding had to cite the supporting declaration paragraph or documentary page. The materials also had to explain how Plaintiffs calculated the requested damages and connect those damages to their legal claims against Boucher.

Any request for attorneys’ fees had to include authenticated, contemporaneous time records identifying each timekeeper, the date of service, hours worked, hourly rate when applicable, and work performed. Plaintiffs also had to provide evidence of the attorneys’ backgrounds and qualifications and documentation of costs and expenses.

If Plaintiffs intended to rely on earlier submissions, they had to notify the court by letter by August 15, 2025, identifying the relevant requirement and the docket numbers and pages supporting it.

Service, response, and possible hearing

Before filing their proposed findings and supporting materials, Plaintiffs had to serve Boucher by mail and email with those materials and a copy of the order. Plaintiffs also had to file proof of service. Boucher was ordered to serve Plaintiffs’ counsel and file any response by September 24, 2025.

The court stated that it might decide the damages inquest solely from the parties’ written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing had to explain why written submissions would not be sufficient, identify the witnesses who would testify, and describe the evidence to be presented.

Disposition

Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky ordered the parties’ submissions and procedures for the damages inquest. This order did not determine the amount of damages, enter a damages award, or itself conduct an evidentiary hearing.