Orellana v. Palacious Drywall Inc.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:23-cv-01962
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Orellana v. Palacious Drywall, Judge Wang ordered a damages inquest after default, requiring written proof and allowing a hearing request.
Plaintiff and the Defaulting Defendants are affected: Plaintiff must submit and serve evidence supporting damages, attorney’s fees, and costs, while the Defaulting Defendants may submit opposition papers and request a damages hearing.
What happened
In Orellana et al. v. Palacious Drywall Inc. et al., the matter was referred for an inquest after a default by defendants. The order concerns determining the amount of damages and related attorney’s fees and costs.
The court ordered Plaintiff to file proposed factual findings, legal conclusions, and a memorandum supporting damages by December 5, 2025. The materials must include documents or affidavits supporting the proposed amounts, documentation for attorney’s fees and costs, and proof that the Defaulting Defendants were served. Defendants’ opposition papers, if any, were due January 5, 2025, as stated in the order.
Judge Ona T. Wang stated that the court may decide the damages inquest using written submissions alone. Any party seeking an evidentiary hearing had to request one in its papers, explain why it was necessary, and describe the additional evidence to be presented. The order did not set a damages or fee amount.
The detailed version
- Orellana v. Palacious Drywall Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-01962
- Analisa Torres
- Nov. 3, 2025
Background
The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang for an inquest following a default. The order addresses the process for determining damages and attorney’s fees and costs. It does not state the amount of damages or fees.
Required submissions
By December 5, 2025, Plaintiff had to file:
- proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; and - an inquest memorandum providing proof of damages.
The proposed damages figures had to be supported by documentary evidence and/or one or more affidavits establishing the figures. Plaintiff also had to provide documentation supporting the requested attorney’s fees and costs.
Plaintiff was required to serve the documents on the Defaulting Defendants and file proof of service on the docket by December 5, 2025. The order separately required Plaintiff to serve a copy of the order on the Defaulting Defendants and file proof of that service by November 14, 2025.
Possible hearing and deadlines
The court notified the parties that it might conduct the inquest solely on written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing on damages had to include that request in its papers, explain why a hearing was necessary, and identify the types of additional evidence that would be presented.
The order stated that Defendants’ opposition papers, if any, were due January 5, 2025. That date precedes the order’s November 3, 2025 date, and the opinion does not clarify whether it is a typographical error.
Disposition
Judge Ona T. Wang issued an order setting the procedures and deadlines for the damages inquest after default. The order did not decide the amount of damages, attorney’s fees, or costs.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.