Luxury Lease Company v. 31 S. 2nd JIG, LLC
- John Koeltl
- 1:19-cv-01952
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Luxury Lease v. 31 S. 2ND JIG, Judge Koeltl sustained objections, allowed more damages evidence, and remanded the matter to Magistrate Judge Fox.
Luxury Lease Company received another opportunity to support its requests for damages and to establish Justin Wolk’s personal liability. 31 S. 2ND JIG and Justin Wolk remained subject to further proceedings and orders before Magistrate Judge Fox.
What happened
Luxury Lease Company v. 31 S. 2ND JIG AND Justin Wolk concerns claims for breach of contract and conversion. The defendants did not appear or respond to the lawsuit or court orders.
The court had determined that a default judgment should be issued and sent the damages issue to Magistrate Judge Fox. Fox recommended awarding no damages because Luxury Lease had not sufficiently proved its damages, Wolk’s personal responsibility, or the legal basis for its calculations.
Judge John G. Koeltl sustained Luxury Lease’s objections, allowed it to submit a revised filing with additional evidence, and remanded the matter to Magistrate Judge Fox for further proceedings.
The detailed version
- Luxury Lease Company v. 31 S. 2nd JIG, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-01952
- John Koeltl
- Jan. 25, 2021
Background
Luxury Lease Company sued 31 S. 2ND JIG and Justin Wolk for breach of contract and conversion. The defendants failed to appear, answer, or otherwise respond to the complaint and court orders. The court had determined that a default judgment should be issued in favor of Luxury Lease and referred the case to Magistrate Judge Fox to determine damages.
Magistrate Judge Fox ordered Luxury Lease to submit proposed factual findings, legal conclusions, a damages memorandum, affidavits, and supporting exhibits. Luxury Lease submitted the required materials, but the defendants did not respond. Fox then recommended awarding no damages. He concluded that Luxury Lease had established its breach-of-contract claim against 31 S. 2ND JIG but had not shown damages with reasonable certainty. He also stated that the submissions did not establish Wolk’s personal liability because they did not show that he personally guaranteed the lease. In addition, the submissions did not identify a specific contract provision or substantive law supporting the damages calculations, and some exhibits were not properly authenticated.
Objections and Ruling
Luxury Lease objected to the Report and Recommendation and asked to submit additional authenticated evidence. It sought to establish Wolk’s personal liability, support its damages request, and correct mistaken cross-references in its filings.
After reviewing the Report and the objections anew, Judge Koeltl sustained the objections. The court found that Luxury Lease appeared to have complied with the magistrate judge’s orders and that its mistakes and omissions appeared inadvertent. The court concluded that allowing a revised submission was reasonable. It granted Luxury Lease an opportunity to cure the identified deficiencies by filing a revised submission supported by exhibits and affidavits, and remanded the matter to Magistrate Judge Fox. The court directed Luxury Lease to comply carefully with Fox’s further orders.
Disposition
The objections were sustained. Luxury Lease was allowed to submit additional supporting materials, and the matter was remanded to Magistrate Judge Fox. The opinion did not itself determine the amount of damages.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.