Angulo v. 36th Street Hospitality LLC
- George Daniels
- 1:19-cv-05075
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Angulo v. 36th Street Hospitality LLC, Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave set deadlines for damages submissions and warned of a written-only recommendation.
Rebecca Angulo and 36th Street Hospitality LLC, including the entities identified as doing business as Taj II and Suite36. The order required the plaintiff to submit damages materials and gave the defendants an opportunity to respond or request an in-court hearing.
What happened
In Angulo v. 36th Street Hospitality LLC, the court ordered the plaintiff to submit proposed factual findings and legal conclusions about damages by March 5, 2020. The court required factual assertions to be supported by an affidavit or other evidence.
The defendants could respond by March 19, 2020. If they did not respond or contact the court by that date to request an in-court hearing, the court stated that it intended to issue a recommendation about damages based only on the plaintiff’s written submissions.
Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave issued this scheduling order as part of a referred proceeding concerning the plaintiff’s damages and attorney’s fee. The order did not decide the amount of damages or attorney’s fees.
The detailed version
- Angulo v. 36th Street Hospitality LLC · No. 1:19-cv-05075
- George Daniels
- Feb. 6, 2020
Background
The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave to conduct an inquest—a proceeding to determine damages—and to prepare a report and recommendation concerning the plaintiff’s damages and attorney’s fee. The opinion does not state the underlying claims or explain any earlier ruling concerning liability.
Order
The court ordered the plaintiff to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning damages by March 5, 2020. The court required the plaintiff to support all factual assertions with an affidavit or other material having evidentiary weight.
The defendants could submit a response by March 19, 2020. The court stated that if the defendants failed to respond or failed to contact chambers by that date to request an in-court hearing, it intended to issue a report and recommendation concerning damages based solely on the plaintiff’s written submissions, without an in-court hearing.
Disposition and effect
The order set deadlines and described the possible procedure for determining damages. It did not award or determine damages, decide attorney’s fees, or state a final amount owed. The cited authority explains that a damages hearing is not always required if the court ensures there is a basis for the damages specified in a judgment entered after a party’s failure to appear, but this order itself does not state that such a judgment was entered.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it addressed the process for an ancillary damages and fee inquest rather than deciding the underlying legal claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.