Santos v. 27 Pizza Cafe Corp.
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-01114
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Santos v. 27 Pizza Cafe Corp., Judge Cronan ordered Santos to submit evidence supporting damages on his motion for default judgment.
David Guevara Santos, 27 Pizza Cafe Corp. d/b/a Pastafina Pizza, and Hassan Ebraheim.
What happened
David Guevara Santos asked the court to enter a default judgment against 27 Pizza Cafe Corp., doing business as Pastafina Pizza, and Hassan Ebraheim. A hearing on that request was scheduled for August 9, 2022.
Santos’s lawyer provided legal arguments supporting a ruling on responsibility and proposed damages based only on the complaint’s allegations. The court noted that a failure to defend may establish responsibility for well-pleaded allegations, but it does not establish the amount of damages. Santos had not provided evidence of his work hours, wages paid, or alleged violations of New York wage-notice and wage-statement requirements.
Judge John P. Cronan ordered Santos to submit an affidavit or other documents supporting his damages request by August 5, 2022. Santos also had to send those materials and the order to the defendants and file proof of service by the stated deadlines. The order did not state that the motion for default judgment was granted or denied.
The detailed version
- Santos v. 27 Pizza Cafe Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-01114
- John Cronan
- Aug. 2, 2022
Background
David Guevara Santos moved for default judgment against 27 Pizza Cafe Corp. doing business as Pastafina Pizza and Hassan Ebraheim. A default judgment is a judgment requested when a party has failed to defend the case. A hearing on Santos’s motion was scheduled for August 9, 2022.
Santos’s counsel submitted an affirmation and exhibits addressing the legal basis for entering default judgment as to liability against both defendants. Counsel also submitted a proposed damages calculation based solely on the allegations in the complaint.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a defendant’s default may be treated as a concession of well-pleaded allegations concerning liability, but it is not an admission of the amount of damages. The plaintiff must support the requested damages with sufficient evidence. The court may determine damages through a hearing or rely on affidavits and other documents instead.
The court found that Santos had not submitted evidence supporting his damages request. Specifically, the opinion identified missing evidence concerning the hours Santos worked, the wages he was paid, and the defendants’ alleged violations of New York Labor Law sections 195 and 198, involving wage notices and wage statements.
Order
The court ordered Santos to submit an affidavit or other documentary evidence supporting his damages request by August 5,
- He had to serve the defendants with that material by overnight courier and file proof of service by August 8,
- Judge John P. Cronan also ordered Santos to serve the defendants with a copy of the order and file proof of that service by August 4,
- The order itself did not grant or deny the motion for default judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.