Moncler S.p.A. v. Does 1-6
- Ona Wang
- 1:19-cv-08848
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Moncler S.p.A. v. Does 1-6, Judge Wang ordered damages submissions after default and said the inquest might occur only in writing.
Moncler S.p.A. and John Does 1-6; the order sets deadlines and procedures for determining damages and related fees and costs after the defendants’ default.
What happened
Moncler S.p.A. v. Does 1-6 concerns a court-ordered damages inquiry after the defendants’ default. The order does not describe Moncler’s underlying claims or decide the amount of damages.
The court directed Moncler to submit proposed factual findings, legal conclusions, evidence supporting its damages figures, and documentation for attorney fees and costs by September 1, 2020. Moncler also had to serve the defendants and file proof of service. The defendants’ opposition was due September 15, 2020.
Judge Ona T. Wang ordered this procedure and said the court might decide the damages inquiry using only written submissions. Any party seeking a hearing had to explain why one was needed and identify the additional evidence it would present.
The detailed version
- Moncler S.p.A. v. Does 1-6 · No. 1:19-cv-08848
- Ona Wang
- July 31, 2020
Background
The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang for an inquest following a default. An inquest is a proceeding used here to determine damages and related amounts after the defendants did not appear or otherwise defend. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims, establish liability beyond referring to the default, or state any proposed damages amount.
Required submissions
By September 1, 2020, Moncler had to file:
- proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; - an inquest memorandum explaining and supporting its damages request; - documentary evidence or one or more affidavits supporting its proposed damages figures; and - documentation supporting its requested attorney fees and costs.
Moncler also had to serve these materials on the defendants and file proof of service on the docket. The defendants’ opposition papers were due by September 15, 2020.
Hearing and disposition
The court notified the parties that it might conduct the damages inquest solely through written submissions. A party requesting an evidentiary hearing had to include that request in its papers, explain why a hearing was necessary, and describe the additional evidence that would be presented. Judge Wang therefore entered procedural directions for the post-default damages inquest; the order did not set a damages amount, award attorney fees or costs, or state that an evidentiary hearing would occur.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.