Siliki v. Linn
- Katherine Failla
- 1:21-cv-08162
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Siliki v. Linn, Judge Wang ordered written submissions and possible hearing procedures for determining damages after a default.
Flavien Siliki and the defaulting defendants, Alan Linn and Citizen Arts Club, Inc. d/b/a Norwood.
What happened
In Siliki v. Linn, the court addressed the next steps after a default and referred the matter for an inquest, a process for determining damages.
The court ordered Flavien Siliki to submit proposed factual findings, legal conclusions, evidence supporting damages, and documentation for attorney’s fees and costs. He also had to serve those materials on the defaulting defendants and file proof of service.
Judge Ona T. Wang set deadlines for Siliki’s submissions and any opposition. She said the damages inquiry might be decided using written submissions alone, but any party requesting a hearing had to explain why it was needed and identify the additional evidence to be presented.
The detailed version
- Siliki v. Linn · No. 1:21-cv-08162
- Katherine Failla
- Nov. 28, 2022
Background
The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang for an inquest following a default. The opinion does not state the underlying claims or explain the circumstances of the default.
Order
The court ordered Plaintiff Flavien Siliki to file by January 3, 2023:
- 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 figures; and - documentation supporting requested attorney’s fees and costs.
Siliki also had to serve these materials on the defaulting defendants, Alan Linn and Citizen Arts Club, Inc., doing business as Norwood, and file proof of service on the docket by January 3, 2023. The order separately required Siliki to serve a copy of the order on the defaulting defendants and file proof of that service by December 5, 2022.
The defendants’ opposition papers, if any, were due January 24, 2023. The court stated that it might conduct the damages inquest solely through written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing had to request one in its papers, explain why a hearing was necessary, and describe the additional evidence that would be presented.
Disposition
This order set procedures and deadlines for deciding damages after a default. It did not state a damages award or otherwise resolve the amount of damages, attorney’s fees, or costs.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.