Woods v. Fitzcon Construction/Ren Corp.
- Andrew Carter
- 1:20-cv-08088
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Woods v. Fitzcon Construction/Ren Corp., Magistrate Judge Cave granted an extension and set deadlines for damages submissions concerning two defaulting defendants.
Edward Woods and Tyrone Hilton; Esco Hirf Co. Inc. and Martin Tevlin; and the other parties to the case as affected by the scheduling directives.
What happened
In Woods v. Fitzcon Construction/Ren Corp., the court granted the plaintiffs’ requested extension concerning their damages submissions against Esco Hirf Co. Inc. and Martin Tevlin, identified as defaulting defendants.
The plaintiffs must submit proposed findings about damages, supported by affidavits or other evidence, by April 19, 2022. They must also document any requested attorneys’ fees and costs. The defaulting defendants may respond by May 3, 2022.
Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave stated that, if the defaulting defendants do not respond or request an in-court hearing, she intended to issue a report and recommendation based only on the written submissions. The order also required service on those defendants and directed the clerk to close the extension request.
The detailed version
- Woods v. Fitzcon Construction/Ren Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-08088
- Andrew Carter
- Apr. 5, 2022
Nature of the order
This was a scheduling order, not a final decision on the plaintiffs’ damages or other claims. The court granted the plaintiffs’ requested extension, identified as ECF No. 64.
Required submissions
The court ordered the plaintiffs to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning damages against Esco Hirf Co. Inc. and Martin Tevlin, whom the order called the “Defaulting Defendants,” by April 19, 2022. The plaintiffs had to support factual assertions with affidavits or other evidence. Any request for attorneys’ fees and costs had to be recorded using the form attached to the order, with supporting evidence.
The Defaulting Defendants could submit responses by May 3, 2022. The order stated that, if they failed to respond or failed to contact the judge’s chambers by that deadline to request an in-court hearing, the judge intended to issue a report and recommendation concerning the motion, including the requested damages, based solely on the plaintiffs’ written submissions and without an in-court hearing.
Other directives
The plaintiffs had to serve the order on the Defaulting Defendants and file proof of service by April 19, 2022. The clerk was directed to close ECF No. 64.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.