Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 24, 2022

Hoguet Newman Regal & Kenney, LLP v. Lowe

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:21-cv-01048
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Hoguet Newman Regal & Kenney v. Lowe, Judge Wang set deadlines for submissions in an upcoming damages inquest.

Who this affects

Hoguet Newman Regal & Kenney, LLP must submit evidence supporting its damages by June 24, 2022. Dan Lowe, identified as proceeding without a lawyer, could submit opposition papers by July 8, 2022.

What happened

In Hoguet Newman Regal & Kenney, LLP v. Lowe, the matter was referred to the court for an inquest to determine damages. The order does not explain the underlying claims or state whether liability had been established.

The court ordered the plaintiff to file its damages materials by June 24, 2022, and the defendant to file opposition papers by July 8, 2022. The plaintiff must include a detailed affidavit or affirmation supporting the claimed damages. The Clerk was also directed to mail the order to the pro se defendant.

Judge Ona T. Wang issued the order on May 24, 2022. The order did not determine the amount of damages or otherwise decide the merits of the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Hoguet Newman Regal & Kenney, LLP v. Lowe · No. 1:21-cv-01048
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
May 24, 2022

Background

The matter had been referred to Judge Ona T. Wang for an inquest, a court process for determining the amount of damages. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims, explain the basis for the referral, or state whether the defendant was liable.

Court’s Order

The court ordered the plaintiff to file its damages materials by June 24, 2022. The defendant’s opposition papers were due by July 8, 2022. The plaintiff was directed to include a detailed supporting affidavit or affirmation with its damages submission.

The order explains that, during a damages inquest, the court accepts the complaint’s factual allegations as true except for allegations about damages. The plaintiff must provide evidence proving the damages suffered, after which the court determines whether the requested relief follows from the established facts. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail a copy of the order to the pro se defendant.

Result and Significance

This was a procedural order setting deadlines and evidentiary requirements for the damages inquest. It did not set a damages amount, award damages, or otherwise resolve the merits of 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.