Juarez Cristino v. Duke Ellington Gourmet Corp.

Background

Judge Daniels had entered default judgment against Duke Ellington Gourmet Corp. and Ghazi Ghanem on February 7, 2022. The case was referred to Judge James L. Cott to conduct an inquest—an examination of the evidence needed to determine damages—and to decide whether default judgment should be entered against Gamal “Doe.”

The order explains that allegations about damages are not automatically accepted as true when a defendant defaults. The plaintiff must provide admissible evidence, such as detailed affidavits and documents, allowing the court to determine damages with reasonable certainty. Although factual allegations supporting liability are accepted as true after a default, the court must still decide whether those allegations establish legal liability. The opinion does not identify the specific claims underlying the requested damages.

Required submissions

The plaintiff had to serve the defendants and file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by March 7, 2022. The submission had to state the exact dollar amount or other monetary relief sought; connect each damages figure to the legal claim on which liability was established; explain how each figure was calculated; and cite the supporting affidavit paragraphs or document pages.

The proposed legal conclusions also had to address whether the complaint stated a legally valid claim and whether default judgment could be entered against Gamal “Doe” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 even though his full identity was not provided. The plaintiff could submit a memorandum of law instead of formal legal conclusions, but it still had to include an affidavit from someone with personal knowledge supporting the facts establishing liability and the proposed damages.

Any request for attorneys’ fees had to include contemporaneous time records, information about each attorney’s experience and hourly rate, legal support for the requested fees, and documentary support for costs.

Response and possible hearing

Defendants could file responses by March 28, 2022. The court stated that it might conduct the damages inquest entirely through written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing had to explain why written submissions were insufficient and describe the witnesses and evidence that would be presented.

Disposition

Judge Cott issued a scheduling order for the damages inquest. The order did not determine the amount of damages, decide whether the complaint stated a valid claim, or enter default judgment against Gamal “Doe.”