Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 2, 2020

Elatab v. Julia Von Boehm Inc.

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:20-cv-04543
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Elatab v. Julia Von Boehm Inc., Magistrate Judge Lehrburger ordered a damages inquest after Judge Schofield entered default judgment against the defendant.

Who this affects

Jawad Elatab and Julia Von Boehm Inc.; the order also sets requirements for the parties’ counsel regarding damages and any attorney-fee request.

What happened

In Elatab v. Julia Von Boehm Inc., the court addressed how to determine the damages owed after the defendant failed to defend the case and a default judgment was entered against it.

The court ordered the plaintiff to serve and file proposed findings explaining the damages and any other requested monetary relief by November 2, 2020. The defendant could respond by November 16, 2020. The submissions had to include supporting affidavits and evidence, and any request for attorney fees had to include detailed time records and information supporting the requested rates.

Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger said the damages inquiry could be decided from written submissions alone, unless a party explained why a hearing was needed. He also specified how the plaintiff must serve the defendant.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Elatab v. Julia Von Boehm Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-04543
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Oct. 2, 2020

Background

By an order dated October 1, 2020, Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted a default judgment against Julia Von Boehm Inc. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger for an inquest, meaning a proceeding to determine the damages and other monetary relief owed after liability had been established by default.

Required submissions

The order required Jawad Elatab to serve Julia Von Boehm Inc. and file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning all damages and any other monetary relief permitted by the default judgment by November 2, 2020. The filing had to state the exact amount sought.

The proposed findings had to connect the requested damages to the legal claims on which liability had been established and explain how the plaintiff calculated the amount. Each factual finding had to cite supporting paragraphs from affidavits or pages of documentary evidence. The plaintiff also had to submit an affidavit from a person with personal knowledge addressing the facts establishing personal jurisdiction over the defendant and subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. Any allegations about liability had to cite the complaint.

Attorney fees and legal argument

Any request for attorney fees had to include contemporaneous time records identifying, for each attorney, the service date, hours worked, and work performed. Counsel also had to provide the attorneys’ years of bar admission, hourly rates, and information supporting the reasonableness of those rates. The legal conclusions or a memorandum of law had to explain the legal basis for any requested damages, interest, or attorney fees.

Defendant’s response and possible hearing

The defendant could respond to the plaintiff’s submissions by November 16, 2020. The court stated that it might conduct the damages inquest based only on the parties’ written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing had to explain why written submissions were insufficient and identify the witnesses and evidence that would be presented.

Disposition

Judge Robert W. Lehrburger ordered the parties to proceed with the damages inquest under these requirements. The order did not state the amount of damages or award damages, attorney fees, or other monetary relief. It also directed that service on the defendant be made at the defendant’s corporate address and through the New York Department of State.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.