Moose Toys Ltd v. Baby&Mommy K-ingdom Toy Store
- George Daniels
- 1:21-cv-02370
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Spin Master v. Baby&Mommy K-ingdom Toy Store: Judge Wang ordered a written damages inquest after defendants’ default, setting deadlines for submissions and objections.
The plaintiffs and the defendants identified as having defaulted, including Baby&Mommy K-ingdom Toy Store and the other named defendants.
What happened
In Spin Master Ltd. and others v. Baby&Mommy K-ingdom Toy Store and others, the plaintiffs asked the court to determine damages after the defendants defaulted.
The court ordered the plaintiffs to submit proposed factual findings, legal conclusions, evidence supporting damages, and documentation for attorney’s fees and costs by January 3, 2023. The plaintiffs also had to serve those materials on the defaulting defendants and file proof of service. Any opposition was due January 24, 2023.
Judge Ona T. Wang said the damages inquiry could be decided from written submissions alone. Any party seeking a hearing had to request one and explain why it was needed and what additional evidence would be presented. The order did not determine the amount of damages.
The detailed version
- Moose Toys Ltd v. Baby&Mommy K-ingdom Toy Store · No. 1:21-cv-02370
- George Daniels
- Nov. 28, 2022
Background
The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang for an inquest after a default by defendants. An inquest is a court process for determining what relief, including damages, should be awarded after a defendant has defaulted.
Court’s Order
The court ordered the plaintiffs to file two documents by January 3, 2023: proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and an inquest memorandum providing proof of damages. The proposed damages figures had to be supported by documents and/or affidavits. The plaintiffs also had to provide documentation supporting any request for attorney’s fees and costs.
The plaintiffs were required to serve those documents on the defaulting defendants and file proof of service on the docket by January 3, 2023. They separately had to serve a copy of the order on the defaulting defendants and file proof of that service by December 5, 2022.
Any opposition by the defendants was due January 24, 2023. The court stated that it might conduct the damages inquest entirely through written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing had to include that request in its papers, explain why a hearing was necessary, and describe the additional evidence it would present.
Result
The order set procedures and deadlines for the damages inquest. It did not award a specific amount of damages, attorney’s fees, or costs, and it did not state that an evidentiary hearing would occur.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.