Perez Garcia v. Hirakegoma Inc.

Background

The order concerns the damages phase following a default judgment. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims, the established liability, or the amount of damages sought.

Required filing by plaintiff

The court ordered the plaintiff to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning all damages and any other monetary relief permitted under the default judgment, including attorneys’ fees and costs. The filing had to include a concluding paragraph stating the exact dollar amount sought.

The proposed findings had to connect the proposed damages to the legal claims on which liability had been established and explain how the plaintiff calculated each amount. The plaintiff also had to support the proposed damages with one or more affidavits, which could include documentary evidence. Each proposed finding of fact had to cite the supporting affidavit paragraphs or document pages.

Any request for attorneys’ fees had to include contemporaneous time records identifying, for each attorney or other timekeeper, the service date, hours worked, and nature of the work.

Service and response deadlines

The plaintiff had to serve the defendants by mail at their last known addresses before filing and include a copy of the order with that service. The plaintiff had to file proof of service with the proposed findings. The filing deadline was February 21, 2020. Defendants’ responses, if any, were due February 28, 2020.

Damages inquiry and disposition

The court notified the parties that it might conduct the damages inquiry based solely on written submissions. Any party seeking an evidentiary hearing had to explain why the inquiry should not proceed on written submissions alone, identify the witnesses it would call, and describe the evidence it would present. Judge Sarah L. Cave issued this procedural order setting requirements for determining damages; it did not determine a damages amount in the opinion.