Johnson v. Tennyson
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-05683
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Johnson v. Tennyson, Magistrate Judge Aaron set deadlines and requirements for deciding damages after Judge Furman entered a default judgment against the defendants.
Eric Johnson must submit evidence and calculations supporting his requested damages by December 14, 2022. Ray Tennyson, Ray Tennyson LLC, and Amazing Paint Party LLC may respond by January 4, 2023. The order governs the process for deciding damages after the default judgment; it does not determine the damages amount.
What happened
In Johnson v. Tennyson, Judge Furman had found that Eric Johnson was entitled to a default judgment against Ray Tennyson, Ray Tennyson LLC, and Amazing Paint Party LLC. The case was then sent to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron to determine damages.
The order requires Johnson to serve the defendants and file proposed findings about damages and other monetary relief by December 14, 2022. His submission must explain how he calculated the requested amount, connect it to his claims, and include supporting affidavits or documents. The defendants may respond by January 4, 2023.
Judge Aaron stated that the damages proceeding may be decided using written submissions alone. Anyone requesting a hearing must explain why one is needed and identify the witnesses and evidence involved. The order does not determine the amount of damages.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Tennyson · No. 1:22-cv-05683
- Jesse Furman
- Nov. 23, 2022
Background
On November 22, 2022, Judge Jesse Furman entered an order finding that Plaintiff Eric Johnson was entitled to a default judgment against Ray Tennyson, Ray Tennyson LLC, and Amazing Paint Party LLC. A default judgment is a judgment entered after a defendant does not defend the case. Judge Furman referred the case to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron for an inquest into damages, meaning a proceeding to determine the amount of money, if any, to award.
Requirements for Johnson’s submission
The order requires Johnson to serve the defendants and file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law about all damages and other monetary relief allowed under the default judgment by December 14, 2022. He must state the exact dollar amount or other monetary relief requested.
The proposed findings must connect the requested damages to Johnson’s legal claims, explain how he calculated the amount, and include support from one or more affidavits or documentary evidence. Each proposed factual finding must cite the supporting affidavit paragraph or document page. Any allegations about liability must cite the appropriate paragraph of the complaint.
Instead of separate conclusions of law, Johnson may file a legal memorandum explaining the principles governing his damages claims, including any request for interest or attorneys’ fees. His papers must also include an affidavit from someone with personal knowledge establishing that the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendants and jurisdiction over the subject matter. Any request for attorneys’ fees must include contemporaneous time records and information about counsel’s bar admission history and hourly rates.
Defendants’ response and possible hearing
The defendants may respond to Johnson’s submissions. Their response must be served on Johnson’s counsel and filed with the court by January 4, 2023.
Judge Aaron notified the parties that he may decide the damages inquest based solely on written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing must explain why written submissions are insufficient and describe the witnesses and evidence that would be presented.
Disposition
This order schedules and governs the damages inquest. It does not state the amount of damages awarded and does not make a final ruling on Johnson’s requested monetary relief.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.