Antetokounmpo v. Costantino
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-02198
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Antetokounmpo v. Constantino, Judge Furman ordered supplemental briefing on default-judgment issues and adjourned the hearing.
Plaintiff Giannis Antetokounmpo and the remaining defendants, Sherrie Richardson-Miller and Jordan Reyes.
What happened
In Giannis Antetokounmpo v. Jack Constantino, et al., Antetokounmpo had pending motions seeking default judgments against Sherrie Richardson-Miller and Jordan Reyes. The court noted that claims against seven originally named defendants had been dismissed.
The court ordered Antetokounmpo to file a supplemental legal memorandum by July 1, 2021, addressing whether Richardson-Miller and Reyes were properly joined, whether the complaint improperly grouped defendants together, whether there was enough evidence to support the claimed $50,000 in damages from each defendant, and whether the case justified attorney’s fees or interest before judgment. The court also required service of the order on Richardson-Miller and Reyes.
Judge Jesse M. Furman adjourned the default-judgment hearing from June 24 to July 15, 2021. The order did not decide whether default judgments, damages, fees, or interest should be awarded.
The detailed version
- Antetokounmpo v. Costantino · No. 1:21-cv-02198
- Jesse Furman
- June 22, 2021
Purpose of the Order
After reviewing Antetokounmpo’s submissions supporting pending motions for default judgments against Sherrie Richardson-Miller and Jordan Reyes, the court ordered additional briefing. The opinion states that Antetokounmpo had dismissed his claims against seven of the originally named defendants and directed that the new submission focus only on Richardson-Miller and Reyes.
Issues for Supplemental Briefing
The court required Antetokounmpo to address four issues:
- Whether joining Richardson-Miller and Reyes in the same action was proper under Rule 20(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court cited authority explaining that allegations that multiple defendants infringed the same patents, without allegations connecting their conduct, may be insufficient for joinder.
- If joinder was proper, whether the complaint satisfied Rule 8(a), which requires a complaint to provide an adequate statement of the claim, or instead improperly grouped the defendants together without distinguishing their alleged conduct.
- Whether the evidence supported Antetokounmpo’s claimed damages of $50,000 from each remaining defendant. The court cited authority declining to award damages on a default judgment when the evidence supporting the amount was inadequate.
- Whether the case was an “exceptional case” that could justify attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest.
Scheduling and Service
The court adjourned the default-judgment hearing scheduled for June 24, 2021, to July 15, 2021, at 4:30 p.m. It ordered Antetokounmpo to serve the order on Richardson-Miller and Reyes within one business day and file proof of service within three business days.
Disposition and Significance
This order did not grant or deny the pending motions for default judgment and did not determine liability, damages, attorney’s fees, or prejudgment interest. It required further briefing and postponed the hearing.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.