Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 25, 2022

LG Capital Funding, LLC v. Hangover Joe's Holdings Corp.

Judge
Denise Cote
Docket
1:21-cv-05584
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureEvidence
In one sentence

In LG Capital Funding v. Hangover Joe’s Holdings, Magistrate Judge Aaron set response and service deadlines while deferring a default-judgment decision.

Who this affects

LG Capital Funding, LLC and Hangover Joe’s Holdings Corp.; the order required the defendant to respond, required the plaintiff to complete service and file proof of service, and set possible procedures for deciding damages.

What happened

LG Capital Funding, LLC asked for a default judgment against Hangover Joe’s Holdings Corp. The court had referred that request to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron for a decision.

The order required Hangover Joe’s Holdings Corp. to respond by February 28, 2022, and required LG Capital Funding, LLC to mail the order and its motion papers to the defendant and file proof of service.

The court did not decide the default-judgment motion. Magistrate Judge Aaron said the court might decide any damages based only on written submissions, unless a party explained why a hearing was needed and identified the witnesses and evidence it would present.

The detailed version

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

Case
LG Capital Funding, LLC v. Hangover Joe's Holdings Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-05584
Judge
Denise Cote
Date
Jan. 25, 2022

Background

LG Capital Funding, LLC filed a motion for default judgment against Hangover Joe’s Holdings Corp. An earlier order referred the motion to United States Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron for disposition.

Order

The court ordered Hangover Joe’s Holdings Corp. to file any response to the motion by Thursday, February 28, 2022. It also ordered LG Capital Funding, LLC to serve the order and specified motion papers on the defendant by mail at the address listed in the affidavit of service, and to file proof of service afterward.

The court notified the parties that it might conduct the damages inquiry based only on their written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing on damages had to explain why written submissions would not be sufficient, identify the witnesses it would call, and describe the evidence it would present.

Disposition

The order set procedural deadlines and explained how the court might handle damages. It did not grant or deny the motion for default judgment and did not decide the amount of damages. The order was signed by Judge Stewart D. Aaron.

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.