Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 27, 2025

U.S. Bank Trust Company v. Jericho Plaza Portfolio LLC

Full caption

U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association, as Trustee for the Benefit of the Certificateholders of Natixis Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2022- JERI v. Jericho Plaza Portfolio LLC

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:24-cv-00917
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedureEvidenceFee Petition
In one sentence

In U.S. Bank Trust v. Jericho Plaza, Judge Tarnofsky set deadlines and evidence requirements for deciding damages after liability was established by stipulation.

Who this affects

The order primarily affects the plaintiff, U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association, and the defendants Jericho Plaza Portfolio LLC and Menachem Meisner. It sets the parties’ submissions, service obligations, and deadlines for determining damages after liability was established on the foreclosure-related claims.

What happened

U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association, as Trustee for the Benefit of the Certificateholders of Natixis Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2022-JERI, acting through Midland Loan Services, obtained an order establishing liability against Jericho Plaza Portfolio LLC and Menachem Meisner on foreclosure-related claims. The parties had asked the court to refer the amount of damages to a magistrate judge.

The order did not set the amount of damages. Instead, it required the plaintiff to submit proposed findings of fact and legal conclusions by September 10, 2025, supported by admissible evidence, calculations, and documents. Jericho Plaza Portfolio LLC and Menachem Meisner could respond by September 24, 2025. The plaintiff also had to serve them before filing.

Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky stated that the court may decide the damages issue using written submissions alone rather than holding a hearing. The order also set documentation requirements for any request for attorneys’ fees and required the plaintiff to explain any reliance on earlier filings.

The detailed version

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

Case
U.S. Bank Trust Company v. Jericho Plaza Portfolio LLC · No. 1:24-cv-00917
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
Aug. 27, 2025

Background

On March 11, 2025, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer endorsed a stipulation between the plaintiff, Jericho Plaza Portfolio LLC, identified as the Borrower, and Menachem Meisner, identified as the Guarantor. That order established liability in favor of the plaintiff on claims for foreclosure of a mortgage, foreclosure of a security interest, and possession. It also referred the calculation of damages to a magistrate judge and set a schedule for briefing the amount of the judgment.

The plaintiff filed a declaration supporting its damages request. The Borrower defendants opposed that declaration, and the plaintiff replied. On July 18, 2025, Judge Engelmayer amended the referral to include the parties’ stipulation.

Order Regarding Damages

Judge Tarnofsky ordered the plaintiff to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by September 10, 2025. The submission must address all damages and other monetary relief allowed by the stipulation and must state the exact dollar amount and any precise non-monetary relief sought from the Borrower and Guarantor, whom the order collectively calls the “Damages Defendants.”

For actual damages, the plaintiff must provide admissible evidence sufficient to allow the court to determine the amount with reasonable certainty. Supporting declarations or affidavits may authenticate necessary documents. Each proposed factual finding must cite the supporting declaration paragraph or documentary page. The plaintiff must explain how it calculated the requested amount and connect the damages to the relevant legal claims. Calculation files must also be sent to chambers in their original file formats.

Attorneys’ Fees and Service

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

Before filing, the plaintiff must serve the Damages Defendants with the proposed findings, supporting materials, and the order. The plaintiff must file proof of service. The Damages Defendants must serve and file any responses and supporting materials by September 24, 2025.

Potential Written Inquest

The court notified the parties that it may conduct the damages inquest— the process for determining the amount of damages—solely from written submissions. A party seeking a hearing must explain why written submissions would not be sufficient, identify the witnesses it would call, and describe the evidence it would present.

If the plaintiff intends to rely on earlier filings, it must identify that intention in a letter filed by September 10, 2025, specifying which requirement each earlier filing supports and identifying the relevant docket numbers and pages. The order set procedures for the damages determination but did not itself award a damages amount or attorneys’ fees.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.