Pearson Education, Inc. v. Doe 1
- Ona Wang
- 1:18-cv-07380
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Pearson Education v. Doe 1, Judge Wang ordered filings for a damages inquiry after defendants’ default.
The plaintiffs had to serve the order, file proof of service, and submit evidence supporting damages and any requested fees and costs. The defendants could oppose the requested amounts and could request a damages hearing under the stated conditions.
What happened
Pearson Education Inc. and other plaintiffs sued Doe 1 and other defendants. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang for an inquiry after the defendants’ default, but this order does not describe the underlying claims or decide damages.
Judge Wang ordered the plaintiffs to serve and file a memorandum with proof of damages, proposed factual and legal findings, supporting documents or affidavits, and records supporting any requested attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiffs had to serve the order by April 22, 2021, and file their memorandum by May 27, 2021. Defendants’ opposition papers were due June 10, 2021.
Judge Wang stated that the damages inquiry could be conducted using written submissions alone. Any party seeking a hearing had to request one in its papers, explain why it was necessary, and describe the additional evidence to be presented. The order did not award damages or attorney’s fees.
The detailed version
- Pearson Education, Inc. v. Doe 1 · No. 1:18-cv-07380
- Ona Wang
- Apr. 15, 2021
Background
The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang for an inquest after default. An inquest is a proceeding to determine the amount of damages after liability has been established following a defendant’s default. The opinion does not identify the underlying legal claims, explain how liability was established, or state whether any damages had already been awarded.
Orders to the Parties
The court ordered the plaintiffs to serve on the defendants and file an inquest memorandum setting out proof of damages by May 27, 2021. The plaintiffs also had to serve the order by April 22, 2021, and file an affidavit confirming service.
The plaintiffs’ 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 of the amounts. Any request for attorney’s fees and costs had to be supported by documentation, including contemporaneous time records.
The defendants’ opposition papers were due June 10, 2021.
Possible Written Proceeding or Hearing
The court notified the parties that it might decide the inquest based solely on written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing on damages had to request one in its papers, explain why a hearing was necessary, and identify the additional evidence that would be presented.
Disposition
Judge Wang entered an order setting deadlines and evidentiary requirements for the damages inquest after default. The order did not determine the amount of damages, award attorney’s fees or costs, or otherwise decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.