Dallemagne v. Khan
- John Koeltl
- 1:19-cv-07934
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Dallemagne v. Khan, Judge Wang ordered defaulting defendants to submit damages materials for an inquest.
The plaintiffs and the defaulting defendants—Omar Khan, Sensei International LLC, International Business and Wine Society-NYC, LLC, International Business & Wine International-NYC, LLC, and Sensei Americas LLC—were affected by the filing, service, opposition, and hearing-request requirements.
What happened
Dallemagne v. Khan concerns the court’s next steps after Omar Khan and four business defendants defaulted. The court ordered the plaintiffs to submit proposed factual findings, legal conclusions, and a memorandum supporting their claimed damages.
The plaintiffs must support their proposed damages with documents or affidavits, explain how the amounts relate to their claims, address the court’s jurisdiction, and document any request for attorney’s fees and costs. They must serve the defendants and file these materials by February 3, 2020. The defendants’ opposition papers were due February 24, 2020.
Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang stated that the damages inquiry could be decided from written submissions alone. Any party requesting a hearing had to explain why it was necessary and identify the additional evidence to be presented. The order did not state a damages amount or award fees.
The detailed version
- Dallemagne v. Khan · No. 1:19-cv-07934
- John Koeltl
- Jan. 13, 2020
Background
The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang for an inquest after defaults by Omar Khan; Sensei International LLC; International Business and Wine Society-NYC, LLC; International Business & Wine International-NYC, LLC; and Sensei Americas LLC.
Order
The court ordered the plaintiffs, by February 3, 2020, to serve the defendants and file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, along with an inquest memorandum explaining and supporting their damages. The proposed findings had to show how the proposed damages figures related to the legal claims and how the court had jurisdiction over the matter and the defendants. The plaintiffs also had to support the damages figures with documentary evidence or one or more affidavits. Any request for attorney’s fees and costs had to be supported by documentation. The plaintiffs had to include a copy of the order with their service and file proof of service on the docket.
The defendants’ opposition papers were due February 24, 2020. The court stated that it might conduct the damages inquest solely on the parties’ written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing had to make that request in its papers, explain why a hearing was necessary, and describe the additional evidence that would be presented.
Effect of the Order
This order established the procedure and deadlines for determining damages after the defendants’ default. It did not specify a damages award or rule on a request for attorney’s fees and costs.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.