Dimas v. Francois Payard LLC
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:18-cv-07873
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Dimas v. Francois Payard LLC, Judge Hellerstein granted default judgment on liability but deferred damages and required proof supporting Plaintiff’s $500,000 request.
Michael Dimas obtained default judgment in his favor against MAFP Ventures LLC and Julien Khalaf, but the court deferred deciding the amount of damages and required additional submissions.
What happened
Michael Dimas sued Francois Payard LLC and others under disability, leave, and New York human-rights laws based on his work as a delivery driver. Only MAFP Ventures LLC and Julien Khalaf remained in the case after the other defendants were voluntarily dismissed.
The court entered defaults against MAFP and Khalaf after they were served but failed to answer. Dimas then asked for default judgment and $500,000 in damages.
In Dimas v. Francois Payard LLC, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein granted default judgment in Dimas’s favor but deferred the damages decision. The court required Dimas to submit evidence supporting his damages, explain the legal method for calculating them, and provide an updated proposed judgment.
The detailed version
- Dimas v. Francois Payard LLC · No. 1:18-cv-07873
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Feb. 28, 2020
Background
Michael Dimas filed claims for damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and New York State and City human-rights laws related to his work as a delivery driver for the defendants. The opinion states that all defendants were voluntarily dismissed on March 1, 2019, except MAFP Ventures LLC, referred to in the opinion as MAFP, and Julien Khalaf.
The court previously allowed counsel for MAFP to withdraw and warned that MAFP, as an entity unable to represent itself without a lawyer, would be placed in default if it did not retain counsel by September 13, 2019. The opinion also states that MAFP and Khalaf were timely served after the court granted additional time for service, but neither defendant answered. The Clerk of Court entered defaults against both defendants on February 26, 2020.
Motion and ruling
Dimas moved for default judgment against MAFP and Khalaf. The court stated that, after reviewing the complaint, it was satisfied that those defendants were liable. A default judgment is a judgment entered because a defendant failed to respond, rather than after a contested trial.
The court did not decide the amount of damages. Dimas’s motion requested $500,000 but did not explain how that figure was calculated or provide a way for the court to determine the loss with reasonable certainty. The court therefore granted default judgment in Dimas’s favor while deferring further consideration of damages.
Required submissions
The court ordered Dimas to submit, by March 13, 2020:
- Documentation necessary to support his claimed damages;
- A memorandum explaining how the damages fit the proper method for calculating damages under each of his causes of action; and
- An updated proposed default judgment.
The order addressed liability and the procedure for establishing damages. It did not award Dimas a specific damages amount in this opinion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.