Nival v. Sugar Factory Broadway LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-08463
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Nival v. Sugar Factory Broadway LLC, Judge Lehrburger set procedures for deciding damages after Judge Schofield entered default judgment.
Stefanie Nival must submit evidence and proposed findings concerning damages by March 10, 2023. Sugar Factory Broadway LLC may respond by March 24, 2023. The order concerns the damages proceeding after default judgment and does not impose a damages amount in this order.
What happened
In Nival v. Sugar Factory Broadway LLC, Judge Lorna G. Schofield had entered default judgment against Sugar Factory Broadway LLC and referred the damages issue to Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger.
Judge Lehrburger ordered Stefanie Nival to file proposed findings explaining all requested damages and other monetary relief by March 10, 2023. The filing had to show how the requested amount was calculated, connect it to the legal claims, and include supporting evidence.
Judge Lehrburger also allowed Sugar Factory Broadway LLC to respond by March 24, 2023, and said the damages proceeding could be decided from written submissions alone. The order did not set a damages amount or award attorney fees.
The detailed version
- Nival v. Sugar Factory Broadway LLC · No. 1:22-cv-08463
- Lorna Schofield
- Feb. 9, 2023
Background
Orders dated February 8 and February 9, 2023, granted default judgment against Sugar Factory Broadway LLC. A default judgment is a judgment entered because a party failed to defend the case. Judge Schofield referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger for an inquest, meaning a proceeding to determine the amount of damages and any other monetary relief owed.
The order notes that summons was never issued for individual defendant Edwin Doe. Stefanie Nival did not seek default judgment against Edwin Doe, and Judge Schofield did not order default judgment against him.
Required Submission
Judge Lehrburger ordered Stefanie Nival to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning all damages and other monetary relief permitted under the default judgment by March 10, 2023. The submission must include a concluding paragraph stating the exact dollar amount, or other monetary relief, sought. Nival may rely on earlier docket filings if they contain the required information and are identified in the new submission.
The proposed findings must connect the requested damages to the legal claims for which liability was established and explain how the damages figure was calculated. They must be supported by affidavits and documentary evidence. Each proposed finding must cite the supporting affidavit paragraphs or documentary pages. The submission must also include an affidavit from a person with personal knowledge addressing facts establishing personal jurisdiction over the defendant and subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. Any allegations concerning liability must cite the appropriate paragraphs of the complaint.
Attorney Fees and Hearing
Any request for attorney fees must include contemporaneous time records identifying each attorney's service dates, hours, and work performed. The submission must also provide each attorney's years of bar admission, hourly rate, and information supporting the rate's reasonableness, along with the legal basis for the requested fees.
Instead of separate conclusions of law, Nival may submit a memorandum explaining the legal principles supporting the requested damages, interest, attorney fees, or other monetary relief.
Sugar Factory Broadway LLC was required to file any response by March 24, 2023. The court may decide the damages inquest based only on written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing must explain why written submissions are insufficient and identify the witnesses and evidence that would be presented.
Disposition
Judge Lehrburger entered an order establishing the schedule and evidentiary requirements for the damages inquest. The order did not determine the amount of damages, award monetary relief, or award attorney fees. Service of the order and related filings was also required under the deadlines and methods specified in the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.