Elof Hansson USA Inc. v. Santiago
- Paul Davison
- 7:18-cv-02758
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Elof Hanson USA Inc. v. Bolivar Ernesto Infante Quinones, Judge Davison ordered submissions for a possible default-judgment damages inquest.
Elof Hanson USA Inc. must prepare, support, and serve the required submissions. Bolivar Ernesto Infante Quinones may respond within 14 days after service. The court may decide the damages inquest from written submissions or consider a request for an evidentiary hearing.
What happened
Elof Hanson USA Inc. v. Bolivar Ernesto Infante Quinones concerns the plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment and the court’s planned review of damages. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison for a recommendation on that motion and for a damages inquest, meaning a process to determine any monetary relief.
The court ordered the plaintiff to explain the legal basis for each claim and how the complaint’s allegations establish liability. The plaintiff must also submit proposed factual findings and legal conclusions about damages, identify the exact amounts sought, support the amounts with affidavits or documents, and serve the order on the defendant. The defendant may respond within 14 days after service.
Judge Davison stated that the damages inquest may be based only on written submissions unless a party explains why a hearing is needed and identifies the proposed witnesses and evidence. The order required the plaintiff’s submissions by April 8, 2020, although the order is dated March 8, 2021.
The detailed version
- Elof Hansson USA Inc. v. Santiago · No. 7:18-cv-02758
- Paul Davison
- Mar. 8, 2021
Background
The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison for a Report and Recommendation on Elof Hanson USA Inc.’s motion for default judgment and to conduct an inquest concerning damages. The opinion does not decide whether default judgment should be entered or determine the amount of damages.
Required submissions
The order directs the plaintiff to file a memorandum of law addressing each cause of action for which it seeks judgment. The memorandum must explain the legal basis for each cause of action and how the well-pleaded allegations in the operative complaint establish liability.
The plaintiff must also file proposed findings of fact and proposed conclusions of law concerning damages or other monetary relief. The filing must state the exact dollar amounts sought in a concluding paragraph. Each proposed factual finding must connect the requested amount to the relevant legal claim and cite supporting affidavit paragraphs or documentary evidence. Any factual allegation concerning liability must cite the relevant complaint paragraph. The plaintiff may submit a memorandum of law about the legal principles governing damages instead of proposed legal conclusions.
Service, response, and possible hearing
The plaintiff must promptly serve the order on the defendant and file an affidavit confirming service. The order states that the plaintiff’s submissions were due April 8, 2020, and that the defendant could respond within 14 days after service.
The court notified the parties that it might conduct the damages inquest solely from written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing must explain why written submissions are insufficient and identify the witnesses and the nature of the evidence that would be presented.
Disposition
Judge Davison entered a scheduling order requiring these submissions and setting procedures for the possible damages inquest. The opinion does not state a disposition of the default-judgment motion, make a liability determination, or award damages.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.