Coscarelli v. Esquared Hospitality LLC
- Jesse Furman
- 1:18-cv-05943
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Coscarelli v. Esquared Hospitality LLC, Judge Furman moved a default-judgment hearing to teleconference and identified issues for counsel to address.
The plaintiffs, defendants, counsel participating in the default-judgment hearing, counsel for Bain Capital Double Impact Fund LP and BCIP Double Impact Associates, LP, and members of the public who wished to listen to the hearing.
What happened
In Coscarelli v. Esquared Hospitality LLC, the court ordered that the June 24, 2021, default-judgment hearing would take place by telephone instead of in person. Counsel had to provide the names and telephone numbers of speakers, while other counsel and the public could listen by calling the court’s conference line.
The court directed counsel to be ready to discuss whether a default judgment against BC Hospitality Group LLC would affect a related case, the effect of that judgment on issues involving previously confirmed arbitration awards, and the relevance of a rule concerning consistent judgments against multiple defendants.
Judge Jesse M. Furman did not decide the default-judgment motion in this order. He ordered the clerk to docket the order in both the current case and related case 21-CV-4159.
The detailed version
- Coscarelli v. Esquared Hospitality LLC · No. 1:18-cv-05943
- Jesse Furman
- June 23, 2021
What the order did
The court ordered that the default-judgment hearing set for June 24, 2021, would be held remotely by telephone. Counsel had to send the court, by 9:00 a.m. that day, a joint email listing the names and telephone numbers of everyone who would speak at the conference. The court would then provide call-in information to those counsel.
Counsel for Bain Capital Double Impact Fund LP and BCIP Double Impact Associates, LP were invited to participate and therefore were to be included in the joint email. Counsel who would not speak and members of the public could listen using the court’s dedicated conference line. The court also reminded the parties to follow its emergency teleconference procedures.
Issues for the hearing
The court directed counsel to address three issues:
- Whether the plaintiffs would argue that a default judgment against BC Hospitality Group LLC would have a preclusive effect—meaning it could prevent certain issues from being contested—in related case 21-CV-4159.
- What effect, if any, a default judgment against BC Hospitality Group LLC would have on issues on which the court had reserved judgment in its earlier order confirming portions of arbitration awards.
- The current scope and possible relevance of the Frow doctrine to the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment. The cited authorities describe that doctrine as potentially requiring consistent relief against multiple defendants when one defendant’s liability necessarily depends on another’s liability.
Disposition and scope
This order set the hearing’s format and identified matters for discussion. It did not grant or deny the motion for default judgment, resolve the preclusion issue, decide the effect of any default judgment, or rule on the arbitration-related issues. The clerk was directed to docket the order in both 18-CV-5943 and 21-CV-4159.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.