Gannon v. Rama & Manjula, LLC
- John Koeltl
- 1:22-cv-01760
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Gannon v. Rama & Manjula, Judge Parker scheduled an inquest to determine the appropriate judgment against Deepchhaya Inc. and set deadlines.
Stephen Gannon, Defendant Deepchhaya Inc., and the other parties receiving or responding to the inquest submissions.
What happened
In Gannon v. Rama & Manjula, the court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker to determine the appropriate judgment against Defendant Deepchhaya Inc.
The court ordered Stephen Gannon to serve and file an inquest memorandum by December 22, 2022, with evidence supporting damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, and proposed factual and legal findings. The memorandum also had to explain why the inquest should not wait until the claims against the answering defendant were resolved and had to state the exact monetary amount sought.
Judge Parker ordered Deepchhaya Inc. to respond by January 23, 2023, if it chose to do so, and scheduled an inquest hearing for February 2, 2023. The order did not determine the amount of damages or other monetary relief.
The detailed version
- Gannon v. Rama & Manjula, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-01760
- John Koeltl
- Nov. 7, 2022
Purpose of the Order
The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker to conduct an inquest concerning the appropriate judgment against Defendant Deepchhaya Inc. An inquest is a proceeding in which the court receives evidence relevant to the judgment, including damages.
Required Submission
The court ordered Plaintiff Stephen Gannon to serve Defendants by mail and file an inquest memorandum by Thursday, December 22, 2022. The memorandum had to include affidavits and exhibits supporting:
- proof of damages, including actual or statutory damages; - the costs of the action; - reasonable attorneys’ fees; and - proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law against Deepchhaya Inc.
Proposed factual findings had to be supported by admissible evidence introduced through affidavit. Any proposed finding concerning liability had to cite the relevant paragraph of the Complaint. Proposed legal findings had to cite applicable law. Requests for attorneys’ fees and costs had to include detailed attorney time records and evidence of costs presented through an attorney declaration.
Timing of the Inquest
The memorandum also had to explain why the court should not postpone the inquest until the claims against the answering defendant were resolved. The order cited decisions in which damages inquests were held until liability was determined for the other defendants.
The submission had to end with a concise summary of the amount of damages or other monetary relief sought, including the exact dollar amount. The order itself did not state the amount sought.
Response and Hearing
Deepchhaya Inc. was ordered to serve the parties and file any response to Gannon’s submissions by Monday, January 23, 2023. Judge Parker scheduled an inquest hearing for Thursday, February 2, 2023, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 17-D of the United States Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York.
Disposition
This was an inquest scheduling order. It set filing requirements, a response deadline, and a hearing date; it did not decide the amount of damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, or other monetary relief.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.