Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 28, 2022

Intelsat Global Sales & Marketing Ltd. v. Supernet Limited

Judge
Alison Nathan
Docket
1:21-cv-02486
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Intelsat v. Supernet, Judge Nathan granted default judgment and ordered monetary relief against Supernet.

Who this affects

Intelsat Global Sales & Marketing Ltd. received a default judgment against Supernet Limited for the specified amounts, including continuing monthly amounts until judgment was entered. The case was then closed.

What happened

Intelsat Global Sales & Marketing Ltd. asked the court to enter default judgment against Supernet Limited. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in detail.

The court had sent Intelsat’s motion to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron, who recommended granting it. No one filed an objection before the deadline, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.

Judge Alison J. Nathan adopted the recommendation and granted Intelsat’s motion for default judgment. She ordered judgment for $10,832,090, plus $1,241,062.51 in late-payment interest and $162,481.35 for each month of nonpayment beginning August 1, 2021, until judgment was entered, and directed the clerk to close the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Intelsat Global Sales & Marketing Ltd. v. Supernet Limited · No. 1:21-cv-02486
Judge
Alison Nathan
Date
Feb. 28, 2022

Background

Intelsat Global Sales & Marketing Ltd. moved for default judgment against Supernet Limited. The order does not describe the underlying claims or explain the parties’ substantive dispute beyond listing the amounts awarded.

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation

On November 8, 2021, the court referred Intelsat’s motion to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron. On December 27, 2021, Judge Aaron issued a Report and Recommendation advising that the court grant the motion.

When a party does not timely object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court reviews it for clear error—a clear mistake in the record. The court stated that no objection had been filed and that the objection deadline had passed. It therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.

Ruling and Judgment

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and granted Intelsat’s motion for default judgment against Supernet. It ordered judgment in Intelsat’s favor for:

- $10,832,090, consisting of $1,567,199.68 in outstanding amounts and a $9,264,890.32 termination fee; - $1,241,062.51 in late-payment interest owed as of July 12, 2021; and - $162,481.35 owed on the first day of each month of nonpayment beginning August 1, 2021, until the date judgment was entered. The order states that this monthly amount represents 1.5% of the total unpaid principal amount.

The court stated that the ruling resolved docket number 16, directed the clerk to enter judgment in accordance with the recommendation, and directed the clerk to close the case.

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.