Lewis Family Group Fund LP v. JS Barkats PLLC

Background

Judge Alison Nathan had granted a default judgment against the Barkats defendants on July 21, 2020, and referred the case to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott for a damages inquest and for review of whether the plaintiffs’ allegations legally established liability. A default judgment follows a defendant’s failure to defend, but it does not automatically establish the amount of damages. The court explained that damages must be supported by admissible evidence and established with reasonable certainty. The court must also determine whether the complaint’s allegations are legally sufficient to support liability.

The plaintiffs had previously addressed the legal sufficiency of their allegations only for Counts 1, 4, 5, and 7. Judge Cott allowed them to provide legal authority concerning the other counts and their alter-ego allegations, or to clarify that they were not seeking damages on claims for which they had provided no supporting authority.

Order

Judge Cott ordered the plaintiffs to serve the defendants and file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning all damages and other monetary relief permitted by the default judgment by August 15, 2020. Their filing had to state the exact amount of money or other relief requested; connect each damages figure to the claim supporting liability; explain how each figure was calculated; and include affidavits and documentary evidence. Each proposed factual finding had to cite the supporting affidavit paragraph or document page, and any liability allegations had to cite the complaint.

Any request for attorney’s fees had to include contemporaneous time records, attorney admission dates, hourly rates, and supporting charts when appropriate. The plaintiffs also had to provide the legal basis for any fee request and documentary support for costs. They could submit a memorandum of law instead of formal conclusions of law. An affidavit from a person with personal knowledge had to address facts supporting liability, the requested damages, personal jurisdiction over the defendants, and subject-matter jurisdiction.

The defendants were permitted to respond by September 4, 2020. The court stated that it might conduct the damages inquest solely through written submissions. A party requesting an evidentiary hearing had to explain why written submissions were insufficient and describe the witnesses and evidence that would be presented. This order set the schedule and evidentiary requirements; it did not award a damages amount in the text provided.