Hernandez v. BMNY Contracting Corp.

Background

The Clerk of Court had entered certificates of default against BMNY Contracting Corp., BMNY Construction Corp., Benedetto Cupo, and Eastland Services Corp. The District Judge had granted the plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against those defendants and referred the case to Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses for an inquest and a report and recommendation concerning damages.

A default judgment establishes consequences based on a defendant’s failure to respond, but the court still must determine the amount of damages and confirm that the legal requirements for judgment are satisfied. The order therefore set the procedures for the damages inquest.

Required submissions

By March 10, 2022, the plaintiff had to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law covering all damages and other monetary relief sought from each defaulting defendant. The filing had to state the exact amount requested from each defendant and the precise terms of any requested nonmonetary relief.

For actual damages, the plaintiff had to provide admissible evidence sufficient to allow the court to determine the amount with reasonable certainty. Declarations or affidavits could authenticate supporting documents. Each proposed factual finding had to cite the supporting declaration paragraph or documentary page, explain how the requested amount was calculated, and connect the damages to the legal claims against the particular defendant.

Jurisdiction and liability

Before entering judgment or awarding damages, the court stated that it had to be satisfied that it had personal jurisdiction over each defaulting defendant and subject-matter jurisdiction over the action. The order warned that inadequate proof of service could result in denial of the damages judgment as to that defendant.

The court also had to determine whether the complaint’s well-pleaded allegations, treated as true after default, were legally sufficient to establish each defendant’s liability on each asserted cause of action. The plaintiff’s proposed legal conclusions, or a memorandum of law submitted instead, had to address jurisdiction, liability, damages, interest, and attorney’s fees.

Attorney’s fees and service

Any request for attorney’s fees had to include authenticated contemporaneous time records identifying the date of service, hours worked, hourly rate when applicable, and nature of the work. The plaintiff also had to provide evidence concerning each timekeeper’s identity and qualifications, as well as documentation of costs and expenses.

Before filing, the plaintiff had to mail each defaulting defendant the proposed findings, supporting materials, and the order, then file proof of mailing. Each defaulting defendant could serve and file a response by April 11, 2022.

Ruling and disposition

Judge Barbara Moses issued a scheduling order for the damages inquest. She notified the parties that the inquest could be conducted entirely on written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing had to explain why written submissions were insufficient, identify the proposed witnesses, and describe the evidence to be presented. The order did not calculate damages, enter a damages award, or decide the underlying claims beyond setting requirements for the inquest.