Tangle Inc. v. Individuals

Background

On February 2, 2022, Judge Lorna G. Schofield entered a default judgment against the defendants. The opinion says the judgment was based on willful federal trademark infringement and counterfeiting, false designation of origin, copyright infringement, and/or unfair competition under New York common law. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger for an inquest—an evidentiary process to determine the damages owed to Tangle Inc.

Required damages submission

The order required Tangle to serve the defendants and file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning all damages and other monetary relief allowed by the default judgment by March 3, 2022. Tangle had to state the exact amount it sought in a concluding paragraph.

The proposed findings had to connect the requested damages to the claims on which liability had been established, explain how Tangle calculated the amount, and cite supporting affidavits or documents. The papers also had to include an affidavit from someone with personal knowledge addressing facts establishing personal jurisdiction over the defendants and subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. Any allegations about liability had to cite the complaint.

Attorney’s fees and legal memorandum

Any request for attorney’s fees had to include contemporaneous time records identifying each attorney’s dates of service, hours worked, and work performed. Tangle also had to provide information about each attorney’s years of bar admission, hourly rate, and the reasonableness of that rate. The legal conclusions had to explain the legal basis for any requested fees. Instead of conclusions of law, Tangle could submit a memorandum explaining the legal principles supporting its damages request, including any request for interest or attorney’s fees.

Defendants’ response and possible hearing

The defendants could file a response by March 31, 2022. The court stated that it might decide the damages inquest based only on written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing had to explain why written submissions were insufficient and identify the witnesses and evidence that would be presented.

Service and disposition

Tangle had to serve the order and the other required documents no later than five days after the order was entered, using service methods previously approved in the case. It also had to file proof of service within five days after serving the documents. Judge Lehrburger’s order established procedures and deadlines for determining damages; it did not award a specific amount or otherwise decide the damages issue.