Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 27, 2023

Casiano v. 67 Deli Inc.

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:21-cv-08459
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Casiano v. 67 Deli Inc., Judge Wang ordered damages submissions after defendants’ default and set deadlines for objections.

Who this affects

The plaintiff and the defendants who were in default, particularly regarding the evidence, service, and deadlines for determining damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.

What happened

In Casiano v. 67 Deli Inc., the court began the process of deciding how much money the plaintiff may recover after a default by the defendants.

The plaintiff must submit proposed factual findings, legal conclusions, evidence supporting damages, and documentation for attorney’s fees and costs. The plaintiff must also serve those materials on the defaulting defendants. The defendants may file opposition papers, and the court may decide the damages issue using written submissions alone.

Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang set April 28, 2023, for the plaintiff’s submissions and May 19, 2023, for any opposition papers. The order did not award a specific amount of damages.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Casiano v. 67 Deli Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-08459
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
Mar. 27, 2023

Background

The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang for an inquest following a default. An inquest is a court proceeding to determine damages or other relief after a defendant has failed to respond or otherwise defend. The order does not identify the underlying claims or state that a final damages award had already been entered.

Required submissions

By April 28, 2023, the plaintiff had to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, along with an inquest memorandum explaining and proving the requested damages. The proposed damages figures had to be supported by documents and/or affidavits. The plaintiff also had to provide documentation supporting requested attorney’s fees and costs.

The plaintiff had to serve these materials on the defaulting defendants, as defined in the court’s earlier filing, and file proof of service by April 28, 2023. The plaintiff separately had to serve a copy of this order on the defaulting defendants and file proof of that service by April 7, 2023.

Possible hearing and deadlines

The court notified the parties that it might conduct the damages inquest solely through written submissions. Any party seeking an evidentiary hearing had to request one in its papers, explain why a hearing was necessary, and describe the additional evidence that would be presented. Any opposition papers from the defendants were due May 19, 2023.

Disposition

The court entered an order setting the procedures and deadlines for the damages inquest. It did not state a damages amount or otherwise resolve the underlying claims in this order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.