Bray v. Purple Eagle Entertainment, Inc.
- George Daniels
- 1:18-cv-05205
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Bray v. Purple Eagle, Judge Cave denied Bray’s default-judgment application without prejudice because it lacked legal argument and evidence, allowing a later renewed application.
David Bray’s request for a default judgment was denied without prejudice; the order also set deadlines for possible subpoenas, a renewed application, and a status report.
What happened
In Bray v. Purple Eagle Entertainment, Inc., David Bray asked the court to enter a default judgment concerning his claim that he owns copyrights in 20 compositions. He submitted a proposed certificate of default and his lawyer’s affirmation, but no legal memorandum, affidavit from Bray, or supporting documents.
The court explained that a default judgment can establish liability based on adequate complaint allegations, but the person seeking judgment must still provide enough evidence to support the amount of damages. The court also declined Bray’s request to obtain information through discovery after the clerk’s entry of default as part of a two-step default-judgment process.
Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave denied Bray’s default-judgment application without prejudice. The court allowed Bray to submit proposed subpoenas for review by September 27, 2021, and said he could renew the application after receiving responsive documents; it also ordered a status report by January 31, 2022.
The detailed version
- Bray v. Purple Eagle Entertainment, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-05205
- George Daniels
- Sept. 13, 2021
Background
The court had previously ordered Plaintiff David Bray to request a certificate of default by July 13, 2021, and to file a motion for default judgment by July 27, 2021, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 and the Southern District of New York’s local rule concerning defaults. Bray filed a proposed clerk’s certificate of default and an affirmation from counsel. He did not file a memorandum of law, an affidavit from himself, or documentary exhibits supporting the application.
The affirmation stated that the action sought a declaration that Bray owns the copyrights to 20 compositions. It also stated that the full amount of damages could not yet be determined from the documents disclosed so far and that Bray intended to seek subpoenas to obtain accounting information from music distribution channels before submitting a later request for a money judgment.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that a default judgment based on well-pleaded allegations may establish a defendant’s liability, but the court must still examine whether the complaint adequately states a claim. The court also must determine damages with reasonable certainty. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving entitlement to damages and supporting the requested amount with evidence connected to the injuries alleged. Depending on the available evidence, a court may determine damages from affidavits and documents without holding an evidentiary hearing.
Ruling and next steps
The court denied without prejudice Bray’s application for a default judgment. It found that the submission was barebones, lacked evidentiary support and a memorandum of law, and did not provide enough evidence for review. The court also declined Bray’s invitation to effectively divide the default-judgment process into stages by beginning discovery after the clerk’s entry of default.
The court stated that, if Bray sought assistance issuing subpoenas to third parties to determine damages, he could submit the subpoenas for the court’s review and endorsement by September 27, 2021. After receiving responsive documents, Bray could renew his default-judgment application. The court ordered him to file a status report by January 31, 2022, describing the progress of collecting evidence and the projected date for filing a renewed motion.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.