Singh v. Meadow Hill Mobile, Inc.
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:20-cv-03853
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Singh v. Meadow Hill Mobile, Inc., Judge Krause ordered written submissions to determine damages after defendants’ default.
The order primarily affected the plaintiffs, who had to prepare and serve the damages submission, and the defendants, who could respond and request an evidentiary hearing.
What happened
Singh v. Meadow Hill Mobile, Inc. involves Kulwinder Singh and Bikramjit Singh, who sued Meadow Hill Mobile, Inc., Abujaber Hazim, and Ahmed Ghadeer. The court had referred the case for an examination of damages after the defendants’ default.
The order required the plaintiffs to serve and file proposed findings about damages and other monetary relief by January 13, 2021. Their filing had to state the exact amount sought, explain how the figures were calculated, connect them to the claims for which liability had been established, and include supporting affidavits or documents. Any request for attorneys’ fees had to include detailed time records. The defendants could respond by February 10, 2021.
Judge Andrew E. Krause ordered that the damages examination could be conducted using written submissions alone. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing had to explain why written submissions were insufficient and identify the proposed witnesses and evidence. The order did not itself set a damages amount or award other monetary relief.
The detailed version
- Singh v. Meadow Hill Mobile, Inc. · No. 7:20-cv-03853
- Cathy Seibel
- Dec. 9, 2020
Background
Kulwinder Singh and Bikramjit Singh brought this case on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against Meadow Hill Mobile, Inc., doing business as Meadow Hill Mobile Mart, Abujaber Hazim, and Ahmed Ghadeer. The case had been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for an inquest, meaning a court process to determine damages, after the defendants’ default. The opinion does not state the underlying claims or the amount of liability established.
Required submissions
The order directed the plaintiffs to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning all damages and any other monetary relief permitted under the default judgment by January 13, 2021. Before filing, the plaintiffs had to serve the defendants by mail at their last known addresses and include a copy of the order. They also had to file proof of service.
The proposed filing had to include a concluding paragraph stating the exact dollar amount of damages or other monetary relief sought. The proposed findings had to connect the requested damages to the legal claims on which liability had been established and explain how the plaintiffs calculated the figures. The submissions had to be supported by one or more affidavits, with any necessary documentary evidence attached. Each proposed finding of fact had to cite the supporting affidavit paragraphs or documentary pages.
Any request for attorneys’ fees had to include contemporaneous time records for each attorney or other timekeeper. The records had to identify the service date, hours worked, and nature of the work.
Defendants’ response and possible hearing
The defendants were given until February 10, 2021, to file responses, if any. The court stated that it could conduct the damages inquest based only on the parties’ written submissions. A party requesting an evidentiary hearing had to explain why the inquest should not proceed on written submissions alone, identify the witnesses who would testify, and describe the evidence that would be presented.
Disposition
Judge Andrew E. Krause issued an order setting procedures and deadlines for the damages inquest. The order did not determine the amount of damages, award attorneys’ 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.