Perez v. Hornitos Restaurant Corp.
- John Koeltl
- 1:21-cv-06641
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Perez v. Hornitos Restaurant Corp., Judge Wang ordered written damages submissions after defendants’ default.
The plaintiffs and the defendants identified as defaulting defendants.
What happened
In Perez v. Hornitos Restaurant Corp., the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang for an inquiry into damages after a default.
The plaintiffs must submit proposed facts and legal conclusions, evidence supporting their damages, and documentation for attorney’s fees and costs. They must serve these materials on the defaulting defendants and file proof of service. Defendants may respond by January 13, 2023.
Judge Ona T. Wang ordered that the damages inquiry may be decided from written submissions alone. Any party seeking a hearing must explain why one is needed and describe the additional evidence to be presented.
The detailed version
- Perez v. Hornitos Restaurant Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-06641
- John Koeltl
- Nov. 17, 2022
Background
The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang for an inquest—a court inquiry into damages—following a default by certain defendants. The order does not decide the amount of damages or enter a final damages award.
Required submissions
The plaintiffs were ordered to file by December 16, 2022:
- proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; - an inquest memorandum explaining and supporting their claimed damages; - documentary evidence or affidavits supporting the proposed damages; and - documentation supporting requested attorney’s fees and costs.
The plaintiffs also had to serve these documents on the defaulting defendants identified in ECF 71 and file proof of service by December 16, 2022. The order separately required service of a copy of the order and filing of proof of that service by November 30, 2022.
Response and possible hearing
The defendants could file opposition papers by January 13, 2023. The court stated that it might conduct the damages inquiry solely on the parties’ written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing had to request one in its papers, explain why it was necessary, and describe the additional evidence that would be presented.
Disposition
Judge Ona T. Wang issued an order setting deadlines and procedures for the damages inquest. The order did not determine the plaintiffs’ damages, attorney’s fees, or costs.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.