Maldonado Rosete v. Aangan of India LLC
- Sarah Cave
- 1:20-cv-09598
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Maldonado Rosete v. Aangan of India LLC: Judge Cave extended deadlines for written damages submissions after defendants’ default.
The plaintiffs and the Defaulting Defendants—Royal Kabab and Curry, Inc., Rym Foods LLC, Nitu Singh, Dicosta Doe, and Aangan of India LLC—were affected by the submission, response, service, and hearing deadlines.
What happened
In Maldonado Rosete v. Aangan of India LLC, the court was handling the next steps for deciding damages and attorneys’ fees against five defendants who had defaulted: Royal Kabab and Curry, Inc., Rym Foods LLC, Nitu Singh, Dicosta Doe, and Aangan of India LLC.
The court gave the plaintiffs until December 30, 2022, to submit proposed findings about damages, supported by affidavits or other evidence. The defaulting defendants could respond by January 20, 2023, and could request an in-court hearing by that date. If they did not respond or request a hearing, the court said it intended to recommend damages based only on the plaintiffs’ written submissions.
Judge Sarah L. Cave also ordered the plaintiffs to promptly serve the order and file proof of service by December 30. She warned that failing to comply could lead to an order requiring the plaintiffs to explain why their claims should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The order set deadlines and procedures; it did not decide the amount of damages or attorneys’ fees.
The detailed version
- Maldonado Rosete v. Aangan of India LLC · No. 1:20-cv-09598
- Sarah Cave
- Dec. 28, 2022
Background
The matter had been referred to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave to conduct an inquest—an evidence-gathering process—and prepare a report and recommendation concerning damages and attorneys’ fees for claims against Royal Kabab and Curry, Inc., Rym Foods LLC, Nitu Singh, Dicosta Doe, and Aangan of India LLC. The opinion calls these parties the “Defaulting Defendants.”
On November 23, 2022, the court directed the plaintiffs to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law about damages by December 23, 2022. The plaintiffs had not submitted the materials or requested an extension by the time of this order.
Scheduling Order
As a one-time courtesy, the court extended the plaintiffs’ deadline to December 30, 2022. The plaintiffs were ordered to support factual assertions with affidavits or other evidence. Their requests for attorneys’ fees and costs also had to be itemized on the form included with the order, with supporting evidence.
The Defaulting Defendants were given until January 20, 2023, to respond to the plaintiffs’ submissions, if they chose to do so. They could also contact Judge Cave’s chambers by that date to request an in-court hearing. The court stated that if the Defaulting Defendants did not respond or request a hearing, it intended to issue a report and recommendation about damages based only on the plaintiffs’ written submissions, without an in-court hearing.
Service and Warning
The plaintiffs were ordered to promptly serve the scheduling order on the Defaulting Defendants and file proof of service by December 30, 2022. Judge Cave warned that failure to comply could result in an order requiring the plaintiffs to show why their claims against the Defaulting Defendants should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Disposition
Judge Sarah L. Cave entered a scheduling order extending the plaintiffs’ submission deadline and setting response and hearing-request deadlines. The order did not determine damages, attorneys’ fees, or costs, and it did not state a final disposition of the claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.