Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 17, 2021

Almonte Tello v. 74 Fifth Ave Market, Corp.

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:18-cv-00210
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Almonte Tello v. 74 Fifth Ave. Market, Judge Netburn ordered a written damages inquest after default and referred the remaining parties for settlement.

Who this affects

Plaintiff Leonel Almonte Tello; defaulting defendants 74 Fifth Ave. Market, Corp., and Valent & Cook at 57 Street, Corp.; and non-defaulting defendant Byung Lim.

What happened

In Almonte Tello v. 74 Fifth Ave. Market, the court addressed what should happen after 74 Fifth Ave. Market, Corp., and Valent & Cook at 57 Street, Corp. defaulted. The opinion does not state the underlying claims or the amount of damages sought.

The plaintiff must file proposed factual findings and legal conclusions about damages and other monetary relief within 30 days, supported by affidavits and documents. The defaulting defendants may respond within 30 days after service. The court may decide the damages inquiry using written submissions alone, unless a party explains why a hearing with witnesses is needed.

Judge Sarah Netburn ordered the damages-inquiry procedures and referred the plaintiff and non-defaulting defendant Byung Lim for a settlement conference. The order did not determine the amount of damages or resolve the underlying claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Almonte Tello v. 74 Fifth Ave Market, Corp. · No. 1:18-cv-00210
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
May 17, 2021

Background

On April 16, 2019, Judge Ronnie Abrams referred the case to Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn to conduct an inquest after default and to issue a report and recommendation concerning Plaintiff's damages against the defaulting defendants, 74 Fifth Ave. Market, Corp., and Valent & Cook at 57 Street, Corp. The opinion does not identify the underlying claims or state that any damages amount had already been established.

Order

The court ordered Plaintiff to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law describing all claimed damages and other monetary relief no later than 30 days after entry of the order. Plaintiff must support the proposed factual findings with affidavits and documentary evidence and cite the supporting evidence for each finding. Plaintiff must also serve the filing and the order by mail to the defaulting defendants' last known addresses.

The defaulting defendants may file responses no later than 30 days after service. They must respond to each proposed finding and conclusion and may submit counter-findings and counter-conclusions, supported by affidavits or other documentary evidence with citations for each factual finding.

Potential Written Inquest

The court notified the parties that it may conduct the damages inquest based solely on written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing must explain why written submissions would be insufficient and describe the witnesses and evidence that would be presented. The order also required courtesy copies of filed documents as required by Judge Netburn's individual practices.

Settlement Conference and Disposition

Judge Netburn also noted that Judge Abrams referred Plaintiff and the non-defaulting defendant, Byung Lim, for a settlement conference. The parties were directed to contact the courtroom deputy with three mutually convenient dates. The order established procedures for determining damages after default and arranged a settlement conference; it did not determine damages or resolve the underlying claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.