Iantosca v. Elie Tahari, Ltd.
- James Cott
- 1:19-cv-04527
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Iantosca v. Elie Tahari, Ltd., Judge Cott scheduled a written damages inquest after Judge Rakoff granted default judgment.
Mark Iantosca, Elie Tahari, Ltd., and Iantosca’s counsel were affected. Iantosca had to submit evidence and proposed findings, the defendant could respond, and counsel had to support any request for attorney’s fees and costs.
What happened
In Iantosca v. Elie Tahari, Ltd., Judge Rakoff had granted default judgment against Elie Tahari, Ltd., and referred the case to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott to determine damages.
Judge Cott ordered Mark Iantosca to submit proposed facts, legal conclusions, and evidence supporting his damages by January 6, 2020. The defendant could respond by January 27, 2020. The order states that factual allegations supporting liability may be accepted after a default, but damages must be supported by evidence.
Judge Cott also directed Iantosca’s lawyer to provide information supporting any request for attorney’s fees and costs. Judge Cott said the damages inquest could be decided from written submissions alone, unless a party explained why a hearing and witnesses were needed.
The detailed version
- Iantosca v. Elie Tahari, Ltd. · No. 1:19-cv-04527
- James Cott
- Dec. 11, 2019
Background
On December 9, 2019, Judge Rakoff granted default judgment against Elie Tahari, Ltd. The case was then referred to United States Magistrate Judge James L. Cott for an inquest into damages. A damages inquest is the court’s process for determining the amount, if any, that should be awarded after default judgment.
Required submissions
Judge Cott directed Mark Iantosca to submit materials concerning the inquest by January 6, 2020, file proof that the materials were served, and include a copy of the order. Elie Tahari, Ltd. was directed to respond by January 27, 2020, after which the matter would be treated as fully submitted.
Iantosca was specifically directed to provide proposed findings of fact and legal conclusions establishing the defendant’s liability as a matter of law. The order explains that a default generally means the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations and reasonable inferences supporting liability, but the court must still determine whether those allegations adequately establish a legal claim.
Damages and fees
The court stated that allegations about damages are not automatically accepted because of a default. Iantosca therefore had to provide detailed affidavits and other documents sufficient to establish damages with reasonable certainty. The court noted that the complaint appeared to say the defendant had credited Iantosca for the photograph at issue and directed Iantosca to address specifically how he was damaged, assuming a copyright violation occurred.
For any request for attorney’s fees and costs, the court directed Iantosca’s counsel to identify the year of admission to the bar, cite decisions supporting the requested hourly rate, and provide documentation supporting the requested costs.
Hearing and disposition
Judge Cott notified the parties that the inquest might be conducted solely on written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing had to explain why written submissions would not be sufficient, identify the witnesses it would call, and describe the evidence the witnesses would present. This order scheduled and set requirements for the damages inquest; it did not state a damages amount or award fees or costs.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.