Martinez Rosendo v. John Doe Corp.
- John Koeltl
- 1:20-cv-04656
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Martinez Rosendo v. John Doe Corp., Judge Wang ordered a damages inquest after default and set deadlines for evidence and opposition.
The plaintiff, Juan Carlos Martinez Rosendo, had to submit proof supporting damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. The defendants, John Doe Corp. d/b/a Jireh Tire and the other defendants, could submit opposition papers and request a hearing.
What happened
In Martinez Rosendo v. John Doe Corp., the matter had been referred for an inquest to determine damages after the defendants’ default.
The court ordered the plaintiff to serve and file a memorandum by March 12, 2021, supporting the requested damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. The defendants’ opposition papers were due April 12, 2021.
Judge Ona T. Wang said the inquest could be decided from written submissions alone, unless a party requested a hearing and explained why it was needed. The order did not set a damages amount.
The detailed version
- Martinez Rosendo v. John Doe Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-04656
- John Koeltl
- Feb. 11, 2021
Background
The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang for an inquest after default. An inquest is a proceeding used to determine the amount of damages and related amounts after liability has been established through a default. The opinion does not state the amount of damages sought or identify the specific claims on which liability had been established.
Orders and Deadlines
The court ordered the plaintiff to serve the defendants and file an inquest memorandum by March 12, 2021. The plaintiff also had to serve the order on the defendants by that date and file proof of service on the docket.
The plaintiff’s proposed findings of fact and law had to connect the proposed damages amount to the legal claims on which liability had been established. The proposed damages had to be supported by documents or affidavits from someone with personal knowledge. Any request for attorney’s fees and costs had to include supporting documentation, including contemporaneous time records.
The defendants’ opposition papers were due April 12, 2021. The court stated that it might conduct the damages inquest solely through written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing had to request one in its papers, explain why it was necessary, and describe the additional evidence to be presented.
Disposition
Judge Ona T. Wang issued an order setting the procedures and deadlines for the damages inquest. The opinion does not award a specific amount of damages, rule on attorney’s fees or costs, or state that an evidentiary hearing was required.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.