Alvarez v. Antojitos Food Supply Company
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:22-cv-02815
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Alvarez v. Antojitos Food Supply Company, Judge Wang set deadlines and procedures for deciding damages after defendants’ default.
Plaintiff Jannet Villar Alvarez and the Defaulting Defendants, who were given filing, service, and opposition deadlines concerning the damages inquest.
What happened
In Alvarez v. Antojitos Food Supply Company, the court addressed the next steps after a default and referred the matter for an inquest, meaning a process to determine damages.
The court ordered Plaintiff Jannet Villar Alvarez to submit proposed factual findings, legal conclusions, evidence supporting damages, and documentation for attorney’s fees and costs by February 3, 2023. She also had to serve those materials on the Defaulting Defendants and file proof of service. Any opposition was due February 24, 2023.
Judge Ona T. Wang stated that the damages process could be decided on written submissions alone. Anyone seeking a hearing had to request one in their papers and explain why it was necessary and what additional evidence would be presented. The court also required Plaintiff to serve the order and file proof of service by January 11, 2023.
The detailed version
- Alvarez v. Antojitos Food Supply Company · No. 1:22-cv-02815
- Paul Gardephe
- Jan. 3, 2023
Background
The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang for an inquest following a default by the defendants identified in the order as the “Defaulting Defendants.” An inquest is a proceeding used here to determine the amount of damages and related fees and costs after the default.
Order
The court ordered Plaintiff Jannet Villar Alvarez to file the following by February 3, 2023:
- proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; - an inquest memorandum explaining and supporting the claimed damages; - documentary evidence and/or affidavits supporting the proposed damages figures; and - documentation supporting any requested attorney’s fees and costs.
Plaintiff also had to serve those documents on the Defaulting Defendants and file proof of service on the docket by February 3, 2023. The court separately required Plaintiff to serve a copy of the order on the Defaulting Defendants and file proof of that service by January 11, 2023.
Opposition and Possible Hearing
Any opposition papers from the defendants were due February 24, 2023. The court stated that it might conduct the damages inquest solely through the parties’ written submissions. A party requesting an evidentiary hearing 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 the order setting deadlines and procedures for the damages inquest. The order did not determine 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.