Voronina v. Scores Holding Company, Inc.
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:16-cv-02477
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Voronina v. Scores Holding Company, Judge Freeman scheduled a damages inquest after Scores obtained default judgments against Norm A Properties and Fuun House.
Scores Holding Company, Inc. and Norm A Properties, LLC. The order also refers to Fuun House Productions, L.L.C.’s separate default judgment and damages inquest.
What happened
In Voronina v. Scores Holding Company, Inc., Scores had obtained default judgments against third-party defendants Norm A Properties, LLC and Fuun House Productions, L.L.C. The court was handling the next step: determining damages.
The order required Scores to submit proposed factual findings, legal conclusions, and supporting evidence about damages against Norm A by April 2, 2020. Norm A could respond by May 4, 2020, but because it is a company, it had to respond through a lawyer.
If Norm A did not respond through a lawyer, the court would rely on Scores’ written submissions and would not hold a damages hearing unless Norm A requested one in writing. Judge Freeman issued this scheduling order; it did not determine the amount of damages.
The detailed version
- Voronina v. Scores Holding Company, Inc. · No. 1:16-cv-02477
- Lewis Kaplan
- Mar. 3, 2020
Background
The order concerns the third-party claims in the case. The court stated that Judge Lewis A. Kaplan had entered default judgments in favor of Scores Holding Company, Inc. against two third-party defendants: Norm A Properties, LLC and Fuun House Productions, L.L.C. The matters had been referred for damages inquests, meaning proceedings to determine the amount of damages after liability was established through default.
The court had previously issued a scheduling order concerning Fuun House’s default but had not included Norm A’s default. This order corrected that omission.
Required submissions
The court ordered Scores to file and serve proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning damages against Norm A by April 2, 2020. Scores had to connect its proposed damages to the legal claims for which liability had been established, explain how it calculated the proposed amounts, and support the submission with a sworn affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury. The supporting submission also had to attach and explain documentary evidence supporting the proposed damages.
Norm A’s response, if any, was due by May 4, 2020. Because Norm A is a corporation, the court stated that it could appear only through an attorney, so any response had to be submitted through counsel to be considered.
Effect of failing to respond
If Norm A did not respond through counsel by May 4, the court would issue a report and recommendation about damages based only on Scores’ written submissions. The court also stated that it would not hold a damages hearing unless Norm A requested one in writing through counsel by that date. The order cited decisions explaining that a damages hearing may be unnecessary if the court has a sufficient basis for the damages amount.
Disposition
This was a scheduling order for a damages inquest. It did not set or award a damages amount, decide any new claim, or otherwise resolve the merits. Judge Debra Freeman issued the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.