Samsonite IP Holdings S.ar.l. v. Shenzhen Liangyiyou E-Commerce Co., Ltd.
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:19-cv-02564-PGG
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Samsonite IP Holdings v. Shenzhen Liangyiyou, Judge Freeman scheduled a damages inquest after default and a permanent injunction.
Samsonite IP Holdings S.ar.l. and Speculative Product Design, LLC must submit their damages materials; Shenzhen Liangyiyou E-Commerce Co., Ltd. may respond through counsel and request a hearing.
What happened
Samsonite IP Holdings S.ar.l. and Speculative Product Design, LLC sued Shenzhen Liangyiyou E-Commerce Co., Ltd. and other defendants. The court had already entered an order of default and a permanent injunction against Shenzhen Liangyiyou, and the case was referred for determining damages.
Judge Debra Freeman ordered the plaintiffs to submit proposed findings, legal conclusions, evidence, and any request for attorneys’ fees and costs by March 31, 2020. Shenzhen Liangyiyou could respond by April 30, 2020, but the court warned that a company must use a lawyer to appear.
Judge Debra Freeman stated that if the defendant did not respond, she would prepare a recommendation about damages based only on the plaintiffs’ written submissions. The court would not hold a damages hearing unless the defendant requested one in writing by April 30, 2020.
The detailed version
- Samsonite IP Holdings S.ar.l. v. Shenzhen Liangyiyou E-Commerce Co., Ltd. · No. 1:19-cv-02564-PGG
- Paul Gardephe
- Feb. 28, 2020
Background
On November 4, 2019, Judge Paul G. Gardephe entered an order of default and a permanent injunction against Shenzhen Liangyiyou E-Commerce Co., Ltd. The matter was then referred to Judge Debra Freeman to conduct an inquest—a proceeding to determine the amount of damages owed after default. The plaintiffs later asked the court to set a schedule for submitting evidence and written arguments about damages.
Order
The court ordered the plaintiffs to serve Shenzhen Liangyiyou and file proposed findings of fact and legal conclusions about damages by March 31, 2020. Their submission had to connect the requested damages to the claims on which liability had been established, explain how they calculated the requested amount, and include a sworn affidavit or declaration made under penalty of perjury. Supporting documents had to be attached and explained.
If the plaintiffs sought attorneys’ fees and litigation costs, they also had to provide contemporaneous attorney time records, address whether the attorneys’ and support staff’s hourly rates were reasonable, and provide invoices or other documents supporting the claimed costs.
Shenzhen Liangyiyou could respond by April 30, 2020. The court cautioned that, as a corporation, it could not appear without an attorney, so any response or request for a damages hearing had to be submitted through counsel.
Effect of Nonresponse
Judge Debra Freeman ordered that, if Shenzhen Liangyiyou did not respond by April 30, 2020, the court would proceed to issue a report and recommendation about damages based solely on the plaintiffs’ written submissions. The court also stated that it would not hold a damages hearing unless the defendant requested one in writing by that deadline. This order set the procedure for determining damages; it did not itself award a damages amount.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.