Lowry v. Edelman
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-07861
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lowry v. Edelman, Magistrate Judge Wang ordered written submissions for an inquest to determine damages after defendants’ default.
The plaintiffs and the defendants who were identified as defaulting defendants in ECF 211, particularly regarding submissions, service, opposition, and any damages hearing.
What happened
Lowry v. Edelman concerns the next steps after a default by certain defendants. The court referred the matter for an inquest, a process for determining the amount of damages and related costs.
By January 27, 2023, the plaintiffs had to submit proposed factual findings, legal conclusions, and a memorandum supporting their damages request. They also had to provide documents or affidavits supporting the requested amounts and documentation for any attorneys’ fees and costs. The plaintiffs had to serve these materials on the defaulting defendants and file proof of service.
The defaulting defendants could file opposition papers by February 17, 2023. The order stated that the court might decide damages based only on written submissions, but any party seeking a hearing had to explain why one was necessary and identify the additional evidence to be presented. Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang also required the plaintiffs to serve the order and file proof of service by January 6, 2023.
The detailed version
- Lowry v. Edelman · No. 1:21-cv-07861
- Jesse Furman
- Dec. 22, 2022
Background
The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang for an inquest after a default. An inquest is a proceeding used here to determine damages and related amounts after the defaulting defendants did not participate in the case as required.
Required submissions
The court ordered the plaintiffs to file two documents by January 27, 2023:
- proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; and - an inquest memorandum presenting proof of damages.
The proposed damages figures had to be supported by documentary evidence and/or one or more affidavits establishing the amounts requested. The plaintiffs also had to provide documentation supporting any request for attorneys’ fees and costs.
The plaintiffs had to serve these documents on the “Defaulting Defendants,” as defined in ECF 211, and file proof of service on the docket by January 27, 2023. Separately, the court required the plaintiffs to serve a copy of the order on those defendants and file proof of service by January 6, 2023.
Response and possible hearing
The defendants’ opposition papers, if any, were due by February 17, 2023. The court stated that it might conduct the damages inquest solely through the parties’ written submissions. Any party requesting an evidentiary hearing on damages had to make that request in its papers, explain why a hearing was necessary, and describe the additional evidence that would be presented.
Disposition
Judge Ona T. Wang issued an order setting the filing, service, and response requirements for the damages inquest. The order did not determine the amount of damages, attorneys’ fees, or costs.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.