Asllani v. Hoti

Background

On December 12, 2019, Judge Paul G. Gardephe granted a default judgment against Samir Hoti and S.H. General Contracting, LLC, doing business as S-H General Contracting Corp. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger for an inquest, meaning a proceeding to determine the damages and other monetary relief owed after liability had been established.

Required submissions

The order required Plaintiff Zaim Asllani to serve the defendants and file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning all damages and other monetary relief permitted by the default judgment by January 21, 2020. The filing had to state the exact dollar amount or other relief sought.

The proposed findings had to connect the requested damages to the legal claims on which liability had been established and explain how the damages figure was calculated. They had to be supported by affidavits and documentary evidence, with citations showing the support for each proposed finding. The submission also had to include an affidavit from a person with personal knowledge establishing facts supporting personal jurisdiction over the defendants and subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute. Any allegations about liability had to cite the appropriate paragraphs of the complaint.

Attorneys’ fees and legal argument

Any request for attorneys’ fees had to include contemporaneous time records identifying each attorney’s service dates, hours worked, and tasks performed. Counsel also had to state the number of years each attorney had been admitted to the bar and each attorney’s hourly rate. The proposed legal conclusions or a memorandum of law had to explain the legal basis for any requested damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and any claim that multiple attorneys were entitled to fees.

Defendants’ response and possible hearing

The defendants could send a response to Plaintiff’s counsel and file it with the court by February 4, 2020. Judge Lehrburger stated that the damages inquest could be conducted solely on the parties’ written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing had to explain why written submissions were insufficient and describe the witnesses and evidence that would be presented.

Service and disposition

The order required service at the defendants’ corporate address, through the New York Department of State, and personally on Samir Hoti. It also required courtesy copies of filed documents to be sent or delivered to Judge Lehrburger. This order set procedures for determining damages; it did not itself state a damages amount or enter a damages award. The order was therefore a procedural order.