Cengage Learning, Inc. v. Doe 1
- John Koeltl
- 1:20-cv-00769
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Cengage Learning v. Doe 1, Judge Koeltl referred damages after default judgment, and Magistrate Judge Aaron set deadlines for written submissions.
The plaintiffs must prepare and file evidence and proposed findings concerning damages and any other requested relief. Defendant Michael McEvilley may respond by the specified deadline. The order does not state a damages amount or award.
What happened
Cengage Learning v. Doe 1 concerns the next steps after Judge Koeltl found that the plaintiffs were entitled to a default judgment against defendant Michael McEvilley. The opinion does not state the amount of damages or other relief awarded.
The court ordered the plaintiffs to serve McEvilley and file proposed factual findings and legal conclusions about damages and any other permitted relief by November 2, 2022. McEvilley could respond by November 16, 2022. The court also required evidence supporting the requested damages and any request for attorneys’ fees.
Judge Koeltl’s referral led Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron to schedule a damages inquest. Judge Aaron stated that the court might decide the damages issue using written submissions alone, unless a party explained why an evidentiary hearing was needed.
The detailed version
- Cengage Learning, Inc. v. Doe 1 · No. 1:20-cv-00769
- John Koeltl
- Oct. 12, 2022
Background
On October 10, 2022, Judge John Koeltl entered an order finding that the plaintiffs were entitled to a default judgment against defendant Michael McEvilley. A default judgment is a judgment entered after a defendant does not defend the case. Judge Koeltl then referred the case to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron for an inquest on damages and a recommendation about the appropriate judgment. The opinion does not state the amount of damages or identify the plaintiffs’ underlying legal claims.
Orders and deadlines
Magistrate Judge Aaron ordered the plaintiffs to serve McEvilley and file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning all damages and any other relief permitted after the default judgment by November 2, 2022. The plaintiffs had to include a short summary of the relief they sought.
The proposed factual findings had to connect the requested damages to the plaintiffs’ legal claims, explain how the damages figure was calculated, and rely on affidavits or documentary evidence. Each proposed factual finding had to identify the supporting affidavit paragraphs or document pages. Any allegations about liability had to cite the amended complaint.
Instead of conclusions of law, the plaintiffs could file a legal memorandum explaining the legal rules supporting their damages claims, including any request for interest or attorneys’ fees. The plaintiffs also had to submit an affidavit from a person with personal knowledge establishing the court’s authority over McEvilley and its authority to hear the subject matter. Any request for attorneys’ fees had to include contemporaneous time records and information about each attorney’s work, years of bar admission, and hourly rate.
McEvilley was ordered to send the plaintiffs’ counsel and file with the court any response to the plaintiffs’ submissions by November 16, 2022.
Possible written inquest
The court notified the parties that it might conduct the damages inquest solely on the parties’ written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing had to explain why written submissions alone would not be sufficient and describe the witnesses and evidence that would be presented. This order scheduled the process; it did not determine the amount of damages or enter an award of attorneys’ fees.
Disposition
Judge Stewart D. Aaron entered the scheduling order on October 12, 2022. The order set filing and response deadlines and established requirements for the damages submissions. It did not state that damages had been awarded.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.