Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 7, 2021

Asesoral Business Partners, LLC v. Seatech Worldwide Corporation

Judge
Alison Nathan
Docket
1:19-cv-11512
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureFee Petition
In one sentence

In Asesoral Business Partners v. Seatech, Judge Cave ordered service and responses before deciding whether to recommend damages from written submissions alone.

Who this affects

Asesoral Business Partners, LLC must serve the order and file proof of service. Seatech Worldwide Corporation, Alliance Fisheries, Inc., and Jesus Delgado may respond or request an in-court hearing by June 25, 2021.

What happened

Asesoral Business Partners, LLC v. Seatech Worldwide Corporation concerns the next steps for deciding the plaintiff’s damages and attorneys’ fees after the court referred the matter for an inquest. The plaintiff submitted proposed findings about damages but had not shown that it served the defendants with the court’s orders.

The court ordered the plaintiff to serve this order on the defendants and file proof of service by June 11, 2021. The defendants may respond to the plaintiff’s submissions by June 25, 2021, and may contact the court’s chambers by that date to request an in-court hearing.

Judge Sarah L. Cave ordered these steps and stated that, if the defendants do not respond or request a hearing, she intends to issue a report and recommendation about damages based only on the plaintiff’s written submissions, without an in-court hearing.

The detailed version

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

Case
Asesoral Business Partners, LLC v. Seatech Worldwide Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-11512
Judge
Alison Nathan
Date
June 7, 2021

Background

On March 11, 2021, the matter was referred to Sarah L. Cave to conduct an inquest and prepare a report and recommendation concerning Asesoral Business Partners, LLC’s damages and attorneys’ fees. An inquest is a proceeding used to determine the amount of damages or other relief. On March 12, 2021, the court directed the plaintiff to submit proposed findings of fact and legal conclusions concerning damages, serve that order on the defendants, and file proof of service. The court later extended the filing deadline.

On June 4, 2021, after an order requiring the plaintiff to explain why it should not face consequences for failing to comply, the plaintiff filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning damages. The opinion states that the plaintiff had not filed proof that it served any of the court’s orders on the defendants.

Order

The court directed the plaintiff to serve the June 7 order on the defendants and file proof of service by June 11, 2021. The defendants were directed to submit any response to the plaintiff’s filings by June 25, 2021. They could also contact Judge Cave’s chambers by that date to request an in-court hearing.

Judge Cave stated that if the defendants failed to respond or failed to contact chambers and request a hearing by June 25, she intended to issue a report and recommendation concerning damages based solely on the plaintiff’s written submissions, without an in-court hearing. The opinion does not state a final damages amount or issue the report and recommendation itself.

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.