Yu v. Diguojiaoyu, Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:18-cv-07303-JMF-OTW
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Yu v. Diguojiaoyu, Judge Furman adopted the damages recommendation, awarding Yu and Jin compensatory damages, fees, and post-judgment interest, but no punitive damages.
Plaintiffs Shanchun Yu and Ruili Jin were awarded $45,000 each in compensatory damages, $5,284 in attorney’s fees, and post-judgment interest; no punitive damages were awarded. The case was ordered closed.
What happened
In Yu v. Diguojiaoyu, the court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation about damages owed to plaintiffs Shanchun Yu and Ruili Jin. No party filed an objection or asked for more time to do so.
The recommendation awarded Yu $45,000 and Jin $45,000 in compensatory damages, denied punitive damages, awarded $5,284 in attorney’s fees, and granted post-judgment interest. The court also noted that it had already awarded plaintiffs $8,595 in attorney’s fees for work completed before December 17, 2019.
Judge Jesse M. Furman found the recommendation well supported and adopted it in its entirety. He directed the clerk to enter judgment and close the case.
The detailed version
- Yu v. Diguojiaoyu, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-07303-JMF-OTW
- Jesse Furman
- Oct. 19, 2022
Background
The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang for an inquest, meaning a court proceeding to determine the amount of damages. Judge Wang recommended that Plaintiff Shanchun Yu receive $45,000 in compensatory damages and Plaintiff Ruili Jin receive $45,000 in compensatory damages. She recommended no punitive damages, $5,284 in attorney’s fees, and post-judgment interest.
The report and recommendation gave the parties fourteen days to object and warned that failing to object would waive the right to object. No objections or requests for an extension were filed. The opinion states that both parties therefore waived their right to object to the report and recommendation or obtain appellate review.
Attorney’s Fees
The report recommended awarding only $5,284 in additional attorney’s fees for work performed after December 17, 2019. Plaintiffs had not provided materials properly listing or identifying work supporting their request for another $8,595 for work performed before that date. The court explained that it had already awarded plaintiffs $8,595 in attorney’s fees as sanctions against the defendants and Mr. Gillespie, jointly and severally, on December 17, 2019. Thus, the plaintiffs were not owed additional fees for work performed before that date.
Ruling
Judge Jesse M. Furman reviewed the report and recommendation without objections and found it well reasoned and supported by the facts and law. The court ADOPTED the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The clerk was directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.