Kelly Toys Holdings, LLC v. Baoding Mi Xiaomei Trading Co., Ltd.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:21-cv-06029
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Kelly Toys v. Baoding Mi Xiaomei: Judge Schofield adopted the report, awarded $50,000 against each of 51 defaulting defendants, and ordered post-judgment interest.
Kelly Toys Holdings, LLC received an award of $50,000 against each of the 51 defaulting defendants, and those defendants were ordered to pay post-judgment interest. The opinion does not state the underlying legal claims.
What happened
In Kelly Toys Holdings, LLC v. Baoding Mi Xiaomei Trading Co., Ltd., the court had already entered a final judgment and permanent injunction against the defendants who defaulted. The court then considered the plaintiff’s request for damages.
A magistrate judge recommended awarding $50,000 against each of 51 defaulting defendants. The plaintiff reported that it served the recommendation on every defaulting defendant using court-authorized alternative service, and no served defendant filed a timely objection.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield adopted the recommendation in full. The court awarded $50,000 against each of the 51 defaulting defendants and ordered them to pay interest after judgment under federal law.
The detailed version
- Kelly Toys Holdings, LLC v. Baoding Mi Xiaomei Trading Co., Ltd. · No. 1:21-cv-06029
- Lorna Schofield
- Sept. 19, 2022
Background
The court stated that, in a final default judgment and permanent injunction order dated December 3, 2021, Kelly Toys Holdings, LLC had already obtained judgment against the defendants who defaulted. The plaintiff’s request for damages was then referred to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave for a post-default judgment hearing and recommendation.
Magistrate judge’s recommendation and service
The magistrate judge’s report recommended awarding $50,000 in damages against each of 51 named defaulting defendants. The report provided 14 days for objections after service. The plaintiff filed a certificate of service stating that, on July 19, 2022, it had served the report on every defaulting defendant using alternative service methods authorized by earlier court orders. The opinion states that no served defaulting defendant filed a timely objection.
Review standard
The district court explained that it could accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations. Specific objections would require the court to independently review the challenged portions. Because no timely objections were filed by the served defaulting defendants, the court adopted the report without describing any independent merits dispute.
Ruling
The court ordered that the report be adopted in full. It awarded damages of $50,000.00 against each of the 51 defaulting defendants listed in the order. It also ordered the defaulting defendants to pay post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.