Leon v. AYG Framing Construction LLC
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:21-cv-08014
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Leon v. AYG Framing Construction LLC, Judge Broderick had Magistrate Judge Aaron set procedures for deciding damages after defendants defaulted.
The plaintiffs, AYG Framing Construction LLC, and Adriano E. Moreira. The plaintiffs had to submit supported damages materials by April 15, 2022, and the Defaulting Defendants could respond by April 29, 2022.
What happened
In Leon v. AYG Framing Construction LLC, Judge Vernon Broderick had found that the plaintiffs were entitled to a default judgment against AYG Framing Construction LLC and Adriano E. Moreira. He then referred the case to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron to determine the judgment’s damages and other monetary relief.
The order required the plaintiffs to serve the defaulting defendants and file proposed findings explaining all requested damages by April 15, 2022. The plaintiffs had to support their calculations with affidavits and documents. The defaulting defendants could respond by April 29, 2022.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron ordered that the damages review could be conducted using written submissions alone. A party seeking a hearing had to explain why a hearing was needed and identify the witnesses and evidence it would present. The order did not set a damages amount.
The detailed version
- Leon v. AYG Framing Construction LLC · No. 1:21-cv-08014
- Vernon Broderick
- Mar. 25, 2022
Background
On March 24, 2022, Judge Vernon Broderick entered an order finding that the plaintiffs were entitled to a default judgment against AYG Framing Construction LLC and Adriano E. Moreira. The opinion calls these two defendants the “Defaulting Defendants.” Judge Broderick referred the case to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron for an inquest about the nature of the judgment to be entered, including damages and other monetary relief.
Required submissions
The order required the plaintiffs to serve the Defaulting Defendants and file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning all damages and other monetary relief permitted under the default judgment by April 15, 2022. The plaintiffs had to state the exact dollar amount or other relief sought.
The proposed findings had to connect each proposed damages figure to the plaintiffs’ legal claims, explain how the figure was calculated, and cite supporting affidavits or documentary evidence. Any statements about liability had to cite the appropriate portions of the complaint. Instead of conclusions of law, the plaintiffs could file a legal memorandum explaining the principles supporting their damages claims, including any claim for interest or attorneys’ fees.
The plaintiffs’ papers also had to include an affidavit from someone with personal knowledge establishing that the court had personal jurisdiction over the Defaulting Defendants and subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. The Defaulting Defendants could file a response by April 29, 2022.
Court’s action
Judge Stewart D. Aaron stated that the damages inquest could be decided solely on the parties’ written submissions. Any party requesting an evidentiary hearing had to explain why written submissions were insufficient and describe the witnesses and evidence it would present. This order scheduled and established procedures for deciding damages; it did not determine the amount of damages.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.