Antetokounmpo v. Munoz
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-07020
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Antetokounmpo v. Munoz, Judge Wang ordered written submissions for a damages inquiry after the defendant’s default.
Giannis Antetokounmpo had to submit and serve materials supporting damages, attorney’s fees, and costs, and Valentin Munoz was given an opportunity to file opposition papers.
What happened
In Antetokounmpo v. Munoz, the court addressed the next steps after Defendant Valentin Munoz’s default. The opinion does not state the underlying claim or decide damages.
The court ordered Plaintiff Giannis Antetokounmpo to submit proposed factual findings, legal conclusions, proof supporting damages, and documentation for attorney’s fees and costs. Antetokounmpo must serve those materials on Munoz and file proof of service. Munoz’s opposition papers are due May 6, 2021.
The court said Judge Ona T. Wang may decide the damages inquiry using written submissions alone. Any party seeking a hearing had to request one and explain why it was needed. Judge Wang also required Antetokounmpo to serve the order within seven days and file proof of service.
The detailed version
- Antetokounmpo v. Munoz · No. 1:20-cv-07020
- Louis Stanton
- Mar. 23, 2021
Background
The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang for an inquest after Defendant Valentin Munoz’s default. The opinion does not identify the underlying claim or state that the court had yet determined the amount of damages.
Required submissions
The court ordered Plaintiff Giannis Antetokounmpo to file, by April 22, 2021:
- proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; and - an inquest memorandum explaining and supporting the requested damages.
The proposed damages figures had to be supported by documents and/or one or more affidavits establishing those figures. Antetokounmpo also had to provide documentation supporting requested attorney’s fees and costs.
Antetokounmpo was required to serve the submissions on Munoz and file proof of service on the docket. Munoz’s opposition papers were due by May 6, 2021.
Hearing and service
The court notified the parties that it might conduct the damages inquest solely through written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing had to make that request in its papers, explain why a hearing was necessary, and describe the additional evidence that would be presented.
Antetokounmpo also had to serve a copy of the order on Munoz within seven days of the order and file proof of service on the docket.
Disposition
Judge Wang entered an order setting deadlines and procedures for the damages inquest. The opinion does not award a damages amount, rule on attorney’s fees or costs, or state that an evidentiary hearing was ordered. The classification is procedural because the order addresses the process for determining damages after a default rather than deciding the underlying legal claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.