Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 23, 2020

Solis v. 53rd Street Partners, LLC

Judge
Paul Gardephe
Docket
1:19-cv-11708-PGG-SLC
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureEvidence
In one sentence

In Solis v. 53rd Street Partners, LLC, Judge Cave ordered plaintiffs to submit evidence supporting damages calculations in the default-related damages inquest.

Who this affects

The 44 named plaintiffs had to provide individual affidavits and supporting documents by November 13, 2020, and serve those materials on the defendants. The defendants were entitled to receive the supplemental submissions and the order.

What happened

In Solis v. 53rd Street Partners, LLC, the plaintiffs sought damages for 44 named plaintiffs in a wage-and-hour case. Their lawyer described interviews, calls, emails, and questionnaires used to calculate damages, but submitted only spreadsheets and no documents supporting the calculations.

The court said that damages are not automatically accepted when defendants default. Plaintiffs must provide detailed statements and other admissible evidence that allows the court to determine damages with reasonable certainty. The existing submissions did not provide key information such as each plaintiff’s start and end dates, work schedule, or hourly wage.

Judge Sarah L. Cave ordered the plaintiffs to submit a detailed affidavit for each plaintiff, with supporting documents, by November 13, 2020. The plaintiffs also had to serve the supplemental materials and the order on the defendants.

The detailed version

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

Case
Solis v. 53rd Street Partners, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-11708-PGG-SLC
Judge
Paul Gardephe
Date
Oct. 23, 2020

Background

The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave to conduct an inquest—a court process for determining damages—and to issue a report and recommendation concerning the plaintiffs’ damages and attorneys’ fees. The plaintiffs included 44 named individuals. Their counsel submitted declarations describing personal interviews, telephone calls, emails, and questionnaires used to calculate damages. Counsel stated that the calculations were based on information provided by the plaintiffs, but submitted no documents supporting those calculations. The supporting materials consisted of spreadsheets.

Legal standard

The court explained that, in a default situation, allegations about damages are not treated as admitted. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), a plaintiff must submit detailed affidavits and other documentary materials sufficient to establish damages with reasonable certainty. The court also stated that damages must be based on admissible evidence and that a plaintiff’s statement of the damages amount, by itself, is insufficient.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the plaintiffs’ submissions did not give it a reliable basis for calculating damages. Neither the complaint nor the spreadsheets provided necessary wage-and-hour details, including each plaintiff’s start date, end date, work schedule, and hourly wage.

Order

The court ordered the plaintiffs to provide, no later than November 13, 2020, a detailed affidavit for each plaintiff and the supporting documentation needed to support counsel’s damages calculations. The plaintiffs also had to serve the defendants with the supplemental submissions and a copy of the order. The opinion did not itself award a damages amount or attorneys’ fees.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.