Sanchez v. El Barrio's Car Service, Inc
- George Daniels
- 1:19-cv-08724
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Sanchez v. El Barrio’s Car Service, Inc., Judge Aaron scheduled a written damages review after Judge Daniels entered default judgment.
Oscar Sanchez and the defaulting defendants El Barrio’s Car Service, LLC, New Easy Way Radio Dispatch, Inc., Germania Altamirano, and Jose Altamirano.
What happened
In Sanchez v. El Barrio’s Car Service, Inc., Judge Daniels had found that Oscar Sanchez was entitled to a default judgment against El Barrio’s Car Service, LLC, New Easy Way Radio Dispatch, Inc., Germania Altamirano, and Jose Altamirano.
The order set deadlines for Sanchez to serve proposed findings explaining all requested damages and other monetary relief, including the exact amount sought. The defaulting defendants could respond by November 9, 2022. The court said it might decide the damages issue from written submissions alone, unless a party explained why a hearing was needed.
Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron issued the scheduling order and required the parties’ submissions to support the proposed damages and establish the court’s jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Sanchez v. El Barrio's Car Service, Inc · No. 1:19-cv-08724
- George Daniels
- Oct. 4, 2022
Background
On October 3, 2022, Judge George Daniels entered an order finding that the plaintiffs were entitled to a default judgment against El Barrio’s Car Service, LLC, New Easy Way Radio Dispatch, Inc., Germania Altamirano, and Jose Altamirano. The opinion refers to these parties collectively as the “Defaulting Defendants.” Judge Daniels then referred the case to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron for an inquest concerning the judgment to be entered.
What the Order Required
The order directed the plaintiff to serve the Defaulting Defendants and file proposed findings of fact and legal conclusions concerning damages and any other monetary relief allowed by the default judgment by October 25, 2022. The submission had to state the exact dollar amount or other relief sought.
The proposed findings had to connect the requested damages to the plaintiff’s legal claims, explain how the amount was calculated, and include supporting affidavits or documentary evidence. Each proposed finding had to cite the supporting affidavit paragraphs or document pages. Any allegations concerning liability had to cite the appropriate part of the amended complaint.
Instead of legal conclusions, the plaintiff could submit a legal memorandum explaining the principles applicable to the damages claims, including any request for interest or attorney’s fees. The papers also had to include an affidavit from someone with personal knowledge establishing both personal jurisdiction over the Defaulting Defendants and subject-matter jurisdiction.
The Defaulting Defendants could respond by November 9, 2022. The court notified the parties that it might conduct the damages inquest based only on written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing had to explain why written submissions were insufficient and identify the witnesses and evidence that would be presented.
Disposition
This opinion sets the schedule and submission requirements for the damages inquest. It does not state the amount of damages awarded or enter a final damages judgment. Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron signed the order on October 4, 2022.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.