Paypolitan OU v. Marchesoni
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:21-cv-05397
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Paypolitan OU v. Marchesoni, Judge Lehrburger ordered a damages submission after default judgment was entered against Marchesoni and Arcaro.
Paypolitan OU, which had to submit evidence and a damages request, and defendants Eloisa Marchesoni and Giacomo Arcaro, who were given an opportunity to respond.
What happened
In Paypolitan OU v. Marchesoni, Judge Abrams had entered default judgment against Eloisa Marchesoni and Giacomo Arcaro and referred the question of damages to Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger.
The order required Paypolitan OU to serve and file proposed findings explaining its requested damages and any other monetary relief by June 24, 2022. The filing had to include supporting affidavits and evidence, and any request for attorneys’ fees had to include detailed time records and legal support.
Judge Lehrburger ordered the defendants to respond by July 7, 2022. He said the damages proceeding could be decided from written submissions alone, unless a party explained why an evidentiary hearing was needed. This order did not set a damages amount.
The detailed version
- Paypolitan OU v. Marchesoni · No. 1:21-cv-05397
- Ronnie Abrams
- May 27, 2022
Background
On May 26, 2022, Judge Ronnie Abrams granted default judgment against defendants Eloisa Marchesoni and Giacomo Arcaro. The matter was then referred to Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger for an inquest—a proceeding to determine the amount of damages and other monetary relief, if any, permitted by the default judgment.
Required submissions
The order required Paypolitan OU to serve the defendants and file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by June 24, 2022. The filing had to state the exact dollar amount or other monetary relief sought, connect the proposed damages to the legal claims on which liability had been established, explain how the requested amount was calculated, and support each factual finding with affidavits or documentary evidence.
The plaintiff also had to submit an affidavit from a person with personal knowledge establishing personal jurisdiction over the defendants and subject-matter jurisdiction. Any allegations concerning liability had to cite the complaint. Paypolitan OU could submit a memorandum of law instead of separate conclusions of law, but it still had to explain the legal basis for requested damages, interest, or attorneys’ fees.
Attorneys’ fees and hearing procedure
Any request for attorneys’ fees had to include contemporaneous time records identifying each attorney’s service dates, hours, and work performed. Counsel also had to provide information about their years of bar admission, hourly rates, and the reasonableness of those rates, along with the legal basis for the requested fees.
The defendants were required to file any response by July 7, 2022. The court stated that it might decide the damages inquest solely from the written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing had to explain why written submissions were insufficient and describe the witnesses and evidence it would present. The plaintiff had to serve the required documents using service methods previously approved in the case and file proof of service.
Disposition
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger issued directions for determining damages after the default judgment. The order did not determine or award a damages amount.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.