Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 29, 2023

Gautier v. 3 Way Restaurant, Inc.

Judge
Ona Wang
Docket
1:20-cv-03776
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureFee Petition
In one sentence

In Gautier v. 3 Way Restaurant, Judge Wang set deadlines and procedures for deciding damages after defendants’ default.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and the defaulting defendants, who were required to meet the filing, service, opposition, and possible-hearing deadlines.

What happened

In Gautier v. 3 Way Restaurant, the court handled the next steps after a default and referred the matter for an inquiry into damages. The order did not decide how much money the plaintiffs should receive.

The court directed Plaintiff to file proposed factual findings, legal conclusions, and a memorandum supporting damages by May 1, 2023. The requested damages had to be supported by documents or affidavits, and Plaintiff also had to provide records supporting attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiff had to serve those materials on the defaulting defendants and file proof of service by May 8; any opposition was due June 1.

Judge Ona T. Wang stated that the damages inquiry might be decided on written submissions alone. A party seeking a hearing had to request one, explain why it was necessary, and identify the additional evidence to be presented. The order also required Plaintiff to serve the order on the defaulting defendants and file proof of service by April 5, 2023.

The detailed version

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

Case
Gautier v. 3 Way Restaurant, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-03776
Judge
Ona Wang
Date
Mar. 29, 2023

Purpose of the Order

The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang for an inquest after a default. An inquest is a court process for determining what relief, including damages, should be awarded after a party has failed to defend. This order established the required submissions and deadlines; it did not determine the amount of damages, attorney’s fees, or costs.

Required Submissions

By May 1, 2023, Plaintiff was required to file:

- 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 those figures. Plaintiff also had to include documentation supporting any requested attorney’s fees and costs.

Service and Opposition Deadlines

Plaintiff was required to serve the submissions on the defaulting defendants and file proof of service on the docket by May 8, 2023. Any opposition papers from the defendants were due June 1, 2023.

Plaintiff also had to serve a copy of the order on the defaulting defendants and file proof of that service on the docket by April 5, 2023.

Possible Hearing

The court notified the parties that it might conduct the damages inquest solely through written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing had to include that request in its papers, explain why a hearing was necessary, and describe the types of additional evidence that would be presented.

Disposition

The court entered an order setting the inquest procedures and deadlines. It did not enter a damages award or otherwise state the amount owed.

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.