Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 25, 2022

Martinez v. Accelerant Media, LLC

Judge
George Daniels
Docket
1:20-cv-09366
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureFee Petition
In one sentence

In Martinez v. Accelerant Media, Judge Wang ordered a damages inquest after defendants defaulted.

Who this affects

Jamie Rio Martinez and the defendants who defaulted, including Accelerant Media, LLC.

What happened

In Martinez v. Accelerant Media, LLC, the court addressed what must happen after certain defendants defaulted. The order required Jamie Rio Martinez to submit proposed facts and legal conclusions, proof of damages, and supporting documents.

Martinez also had to provide documents supporting attorney’s fees and costs, serve the submissions on the defaulting defendants, and file proof of service. The defaulting defendants could file opposition papers by December 19, 2022.

Judge Ona T. Wang said the damages inquest might be decided from written submissions alone. The order did not decide the amount of damages or attorney’s fees and costs, and it allowed a party to request a hearing by explaining why one was necessary.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Martinez v. Accelerant Media, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-09366
Judge
George Daniels
Date
Oct. 25, 2022

What the Order Does

This order sets the procedure for an inquest after certain defendants defaulted. An inquest is a court process for determining matters that remain to be established after a default; here, the court directed the parties to address damages and related fees and costs.

Required Submissions

By November 28, 2022, Jamie Rio Martinez had to file:

- proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; - an inquest memorandum explaining and supporting the requested damages; - documentary evidence and/or affidavits supporting the proposed damages; and - documentation supporting requested attorney’s fees and costs.

Martinez also had to serve these documents on the defaulting defendants, as defined in ECF 65, and file proof of service on the docket by November 28, 2022. Separately, Martinez had to serve a copy of the order on the defaulting defendants and file proof of that service by November 1, 2022.

Responses and Possible Hearing

The defendants could file opposition papers by December 19, 2022. The court stated that it might conduct the inquest solely through the parties’ written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing on damages had to request one in its papers, explain why it was necessary, and describe the additional evidence that would be presented.

Disposition and Scope

Judge Ona T. Wang entered an order setting deadlines and procedures for the inquest. The opinion does not determine the amount of damages, attorney’s fees, or costs, and it does not state the final judgment amount.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.