SPIN MASTER, LTD. v. ACIPER
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:19-cv-06949
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Spin Master v. Aciper: Judge Wang ordered an inquest into damages after defendants’ default and set deadlines for written submissions.
SPIN MASTER LTD. and SPIN MASTER, INC., as the plaintiffs seeking damages and related fees and costs, and the defaulting defendants who could submit opposition papers or request a damages hearing.
What happened
In SPIN MASTER LTD. and SPIN MASTER, INC. v. ACIPER et al., the court began the process of determining damages after a default. It ordered the plaintiffs to submit proposed factual findings, legal conclusions, and a memorandum supporting their damages request.
The plaintiffs must support the proposed damages with documents or affidavits and provide records supporting attorney’s fees and costs. They must serve the materials on the defaulting defendants and file proof of service by October 18, 2022, while the main submissions were due by November 11, 2022. Any opposition was due by December 2, 2022.
Judge Ona T. Wang stated that the damages proceeding might be decided from written submissions alone. A party requesting a hearing had to explain why one was necessary and identify the additional evidence it would present. This order did not decide the amount of damages.
The detailed version
- SPIN MASTER, LTD. v. ACIPER · No. 1:19-cv-06949
- Vernon Broderick
- Oct. 11, 2022
Background
The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang for an inquest following a default. An inquest is a proceeding used to determine the amount of damages and related monetary relief after a defendant has defaulted. The order does not state the amount of damages sought or make a damages determination.
Required submissions
By November 11, 2022, the plaintiffs had to file:
- proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; and - an inquest memorandum explaining and proving their damages.
The proposed damages figures had to be supported by documentary evidence and/or one or more affidavits. The plaintiffs also had to provide documentation supporting requested attorney’s fees and costs.
Service and response deadlines
The plaintiffs had to serve the submissions on the defaulting defendants, as defined in ECF 140, and file proof of service on the docket by November 11, 2022. Separately, the plaintiffs had to serve a copy of the order on the defaulting defendants and file proof of that service by October 18, 2022. Any opposition from the defendants was due December 2, 2022.
Potential hearing
The court notified the parties that it might conduct the damages inquest solely through written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing had to request one in its papers, explain why a hearing was necessary, and describe the additional evidence that would be presented.
Disposition
The order set the procedures and deadlines for the damages inquest after default. It did not award damages, attorney’s fees, or costs and did not state the final result of the inquest.
Judge information
The opinion is signed by Ona T. Wang, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.