Cajero Torres v. Sushi Sushi Holdings Inc.
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:19-cv-02532
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Cajero Torres v. Sushi Sushi Holdings Inc., Judge Lehrburger ordered written submissions to determine damages after default judgment against two defendants.
The order primarily affected Rigardo Cajero Torres, Sushi Sushi Holdings Inc., Harlem Sushi Inc., Igor Grinberg, and Angie Herrera by setting the process and deadlines for determining damages after default judgment.
What happened
In Cajero Torres v. Sushi Sushi Holdings Inc., the court addressed the next step after Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted default judgment against Sushi Sushi Holdings Inc. and Harlem Sushi Inc. The case was referred for a review of the plaintiff’s damages.
The order required the plaintiff to serve the defendants and file proposed findings explaining the damages and any other requested monetary relief by July 16, 2021. Defendants could respond by July 30, 2021. The plaintiff’s submission had to include supporting affidavits and evidence, and any request for attorney fees had to include detailed time records and information supporting the requested rates.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger ordered that the damages review could be decided from written submissions alone. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing had to explain why written submissions were insufficient and identify the proposed witnesses and evidence. The order did not set a damages amount.
The detailed version
- Cajero Torres v. Sushi Sushi Holdings Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-02532
- Robert Lehrburger
- June 4, 2021
Background
By an order dated May 27, 2021, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted default judgment against Sushi Sushi Holdings Inc. and Harlem Sushi Inc. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger for an inquest, meaning a court proceeding to determine the plaintiff’s damages and any other monetary relief allowed by the default judgment. The opinion notes that Igor Grinberg and Angie Herrera remained in the action without lawyers.
Required submissions
The order required the plaintiff to serve the defendants and file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning all damages and other requested monetary relief by July 16, 2021. The filing had to state the exact dollar amount or other relief sought, connect the proposed damages to the claims for which liability had been established, explain how the amount was calculated, and provide affidavits or documents supporting the request. The plaintiff also had to provide an affidavit from a person with personal knowledge addressing the court’s authority over the defendants and its authority to hear the subject matter.
Any request for attorney fees had to include contemporaneous time records identifying each attorney’s service dates, hours, and work performed, as well as information about the attorneys’ years of bar admission and hourly rates. The plaintiff could submit a legal memorandum instead of separate conclusions of law. Defendants were permitted to respond by July 30, 2021.
Hearing and service
The court stated that it might conduct the damages inquest based only on written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing had to explain why a written proceeding was insufficient and describe the witnesses and evidence that would be presented. The order also specified that service on the defendants at their corporate address and through the New York Department of State would be sufficient, and required courtesy copies of filings to be sent to Judge Lehrburger.
Disposition
Judge Lehrburger entered an order setting procedures and deadlines for determining damages. The order did not decide the amount of damages, award attorney fees, or otherwise state the final monetary relief.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.