Telebrands Corp. v. Shenzhen Yitai Technology Co., Ltd.

Background

Judge Lorna Schofield had granted default judgment against Shenzhen Yitai Technology Co., Ltd. on May 5, 2022, and referred the matter to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott for an inquest into damages. The opinion states that Judge Schofield later entered an amended final default judgment and permanent injunction, concluding that the complaint adequately pleaded Telebrands Corp.’s claims and established liability as a matter of law.

Damages Inquest

Judge Cott explained that allegations about damages are not automatically admitted when a defendant defaults. A plaintiff must provide admissible evidence, such as detailed affidavits and other documents, that allows the court to determine damages with reasonable certainty.

The order required Telebrands to serve Shenzhen Yitai and file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning all damages and other monetary relief allowed by the amended default judgment by June 7, 2022. The submission had to state the exact dollar amount or other relief sought. Each proposed damages finding had to be linked to the legal claim establishing liability and supported by citations to affidavits or documentary evidence.

Any request for attorney’s fees had to include contemporaneous time records showing the date of service, hours worked, and work performed for each attorney. Counsel also had to provide information about each attorney’s years of bar admission and hourly rate, legal authority supporting the requested fees, and documentary evidence supporting costs. Instead of conclusions of law, Telebrands could submit a legal memorandum explaining the basis for requested damages, interest, attorney’s fees, or other relief. The required affidavit also had to address facts establishing liability, the requested damages, personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and subject-matter jurisdiction.

Response and Disposition

The defendant’s response, if any, was due June 28, 2022. Judge Cott notified the parties that he could conduct the damages inquest solely from their written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing had to explain why written submissions were insufficient and identify the witnesses and evidence it would present. The order set procedures for determining damages; it did not itself award a damages amount in the text provided.