Tangle Inc. v. Individuals
Tangle Inc. v. The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A hereto
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:21-cv-09352
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Tangle v. The Individuals, Judge Schofield adopted $50,000 default damages awards against listed defendants, excluding Overvloedi.
Tangle, Inc.; the listed defaulting defendants other than Overvloedi; and asset holders possessing those defendants’ assets.
What happened
Tangle, Inc. had already obtained a default judgment against certain defendants, with the amount of damages left for a later proceeding. Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger recommended awarding $50,000 against each defaulting defendant listed in his report.
No defaulting defendant filed a timely objection to that recommendation. Afterward, Tangle, Inc. notified the court that Defendant Overvloedi had satisfied the judgment through an agreed payment of damages, costs, and interest.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield adopted the recommendation except as to Overvloedi. The court awarded $50,000 against each remaining listed defaulting defendant and ordered Tangle, Inc. to propose an order requiring asset holders to transfer those defendants’ assets, while limiting collection to $50,000 per defendant.
The detailed version
- Tangle Inc. v. Individuals · No. 1:21-cv-09352
- Lorna Schofield
- Aug. 4, 2022
Background
Tangle, Inc. had received a default judgment on February 3, 2022, against the defaulting defendants identified in an amended Schedule A. The earlier judgment left the amount of damages to be determined in a later proceeding, called an inquest. The court referred Tangle, Inc.’s damages request to Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger.
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation and Review
On June 29, 2022, Judge Lehrburger recommended awarding $50,000 in damages against each defaulting defendant listed in Attachment A to his report. The attachment did not include defendants against whom Tangle, Inc. did not seek damages for reasons including voluntary dismissal or satisfaction of judgment. The report also recommended directing asset holders to transfer assets belonging to the defaulting defendants to Tangle, Inc., subject to the damages awarded for each defendant.
The report was served by email, which had previously been authorized as a method reasonably calculated to give the defaulting defendants notice. No defaulting defendant filed a timely objection. The District Court therefore reviewed the report for clear error and found none concerning the recommended damages or the proposed asset transfers.
Ruling
The court adopted the report except as to Defendant Overvloedi. After the report was issued, Tangle, Inc. filed a notice stating that Overvloedi had paid an agreed amount of damages, costs, and interest and that Tangle, Inc. wanted to fully satisfy and release the judgment against that defendant.
The court awarded $50,000 against each remaining defaulting defendant identified in the order. It also ordered Tangle, Inc. to file, by August 9, 2022, a proposed order directing the asset holders to transfer any assets belonging to those defendants. The order limited Tangle, Inc.’s total collection to $50,000 for each defaulting defendant.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.