Bell v. Gray
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-01588
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Bell v. Gray, Judge Cronan scheduled briefing and a hearing on Bell’s motion for default judgment without deciding whether default judgment should be entered.
Renzer Bell and Charles Gray, because the order sets the procedures and deadlines for Bell’s motion for default judgment and requires Gray to respond or appear at a hearing.
What happened
In Bell v. Gray, Renzer Bell asked the court to enter default judgment against Charles Gray after the clerk issued a certificate of default. The court treated Bell’s affidavit as a motion for default judgment.
The court ordered Gray to file any opposition by July 28, 2021, and Bell to file any reply by August 11, 2021. It scheduled a telephone hearing for September 10, 2021, requiring Gray to explain why default judgment should not be entered. If Gray did not appear, Bell was to be prepared to discuss communications with Gray and the basis for requested compensatory and incidental damages.
The court also directed Bell to explain why the contract’s liquidated-damages provision was enforceable, noting that two earlier cases filed by Bell had found similar provisions unenforceable. Judge John P. Cronan did not enter or deny default judgment in this order; he set deadlines and scheduled further proceedings.
The detailed version
- Bell v. Gray · No. 1:20-cv-01588
- John Cronan
- June 23, 2021
Background
On May 23, 2021, Renzer Bell filed an affidavit supporting a request for entry of default against Charles Gray. The court construed the affidavit as a motion for default judgment. The Clerk’s Office had docketed a certificate of default as to Gray on May 28, 2021.
Court’s order
The court ordered Gray to file any opposition to the motion by July 28, 2021. Bell’s reply was due by August 11, 2021. The court also ordered Gray to appear and show cause—that is, explain why default judgment should not be entered—at a telephone hearing on September 10, 2021, at 10:30 a.m.
If Gray did not appear, the court directed Bell to be prepared to discuss communications with Gray or his representatives about the litigation and any intent to challenge the lawsuit. Bell also had to address the basis for requesting compensatory and incidental damages.
Liquidated damages
The court directed Bell to file a letter by August 11, 2021, explaining why the contract’s liquidated-damages provision was enforceable. The court stated that a contractual damages provision is enforceable when the amount bears a reasonable relationship to the probable loss and the actual loss is difficult or impossible to calculate precisely. The court noted that, in at least two earlier cases filed by Bell in the Southern District of New York, courts had found similar liquidated-damages provisions unenforceable.
Disposition
The order did not grant or deny the motion for default judgment. It set briefing deadlines, scheduled a show-cause hearing, required additional information about damages and the liquidated-damages provision, and directed the Clerk to mail the order to Bell and Gray by certified mail.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.