Fernandez v. Ray and Frank Liquor Store Inc.

Background

The Clerk of Court had entered a certificate of default against Ray and Frank Liquor Store Inc. The district judge then entered a default against that defendant and referred the case to Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses for an inquest—a court process for determining the plaintiffs’ damages—and a report and recommendation concerning those damages.

Required submissions

The order required the plaintiffs to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by September 14, 2020. The submission had to state the exact dollar amount of damages or other monetary relief requested and the precise terms of any nonmonetary relief.

For actual damages, as opposed to statutory or nominal damages, the plaintiffs had to provide admissible evidence, such as declarations or affidavits with supporting documents. Each proposed factual finding had to cite the supporting declaration paragraph or documentary page and explain how the plaintiffs calculated the requested damages and connected them to their legal claims.

Any request for attorneys’ fees had to include authenticated, contemporaneous time records showing each timekeeper’s date of service, hours, hourly rate if applicable, and work performed. The plaintiffs also had to provide evidence concerning the attorneys’ backgrounds and qualifications and documentation of costs and expenses. They could submit a legal memorandum instead of separate legal conclusions.

Jurisdiction and liability requirements

The order warned that a default did not eliminate the need to establish personal jurisdiction over the defendant and subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. The plaintiffs also had to adequately establish service on the defaulting defendant. The order stated that failure to do so could result in denial of the plaintiffs’ request for a damages judgment.

The plaintiffs likewise had to show that the well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint, which are treated as true after default, were legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s liability for each claim. The order therefore did not itself determine the amount of damages or finally establish the defendant’s liability on the claims.

Service, response, and possible hearing

Before filing their submission, the plaintiffs had to mail it, along with supporting materials and a copy of the order, to the defendant’s last known address and file proof of mailing. The defendant could respond by October 14, 2020.

The court stated that it might conduct the damages inquest based solely on written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing had to explain why written submissions were insufficient, identify the witnesses it would call, and describe the evidence it would present.

Disposition

Judge Barbara Moses entered a scheduling order governing the damages inquest. The order set submission requirements and deadlines but did not award damages or other relief.