Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 6, 2023

Fred Alston as a Trustee of the Local 272 Labor Management Pension Fund v. The…

Full caption

Fred Alston as a Trustee of the Local 272 Labor Management Pension Fund v. The Car Park Of New York, LLC

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:23-cv-00212
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedureFee Petition
In one sentence

Alston v. Car Park of New York: Judge Cott ordered written evidence for determining damages after the defendant’s default judgment.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs must prepare and file evidence supporting their requested damages and any monetary relief. The defendant may respond by the stated deadline and may request a hearing by explaining why written submissions are insufficient.

What happened

In Fred Alston as a Trustee of the Local 272 Labor Management Pension Fund v. The Car Park of New York, LLC, the court addressed how to determine the plaintiffs’ damages after Judge Broderick entered a default judgment against the defendant.

The plaintiffs must serve and file proposed findings about damages and other permitted monetary relief, supported by affidavits and documents, by April 27, 2023. The defendant may respond by May 18, 2023. The court said it may decide the damages issue using written submissions alone, unless a party explains why a hearing and witnesses are needed.

Judge Cott issued a scheduling order for the damages inquiry. The order did not set a damages amount; it established deadlines and evidence requirements for the parties’ submissions.

The detailed version

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

Case
Fred Alston as a Trustee of the Local 272 Labor Management Pension Fund v. The… · No. 1:23-cv-00212
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
Apr. 6, 2023

Background

On April 5, 2023, Judge Vernon Broderick granted a default judgment against The Car Park of New York, LLC and referred the case to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott for an inquiry into damages. This order concerns the procedures for that damages inquiry; it does not determine the amount of damages.

The court explained that a default does not establish the amount of damages alleged in the pleadings. Plaintiffs must provide admissible evidence that allows the court to determine damages with reasonable certainty. The required evidence may include detailed affidavits and other documents.

Required submissions

The plaintiffs must serve the defendant and file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning all damages and any other monetary relief allowed by the default judgment no later than April 27, 2023. They must also serve a copy of the order and file proof of service. Their submission must end with a brief statement identifying the amount of damages or other monetary relief sought, including the exact dollar amount.

The proposed findings must connect each proposed damages figure to the legal claims on which liability was established and explain how the plaintiffs calculated the figures. Each proposed finding must cite the supporting affidavit paragraphs or documentary pages. The plaintiffs’ papers must also include an affidavit from someone with personal knowledge of the facts supporting the proposed damages amount.

Any request for attorneys’ fees must identify the legal basis for the request and include contemporaneous time records showing each attorney’s service date, hours, and work performed. Counsel must provide the years each attorney has been admitted to the bar and each attorney’s hourly rate, along with fee charts when appropriate. Any request for costs must be supported by documentary evidence. The plaintiffs may submit a memorandum of law instead of conclusions of law, addressing the legal principles supporting their damages claims, including any request for interest or attorneys’ fees.

The defendant must send the plaintiffs’ counsel and file any response to the plaintiffs’ submissions by May 18, 2023.

Possible hearing

The court notified the parties that it may conduct the damages inquiry based only on written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing must explain in its submission why written materials are insufficient, identify the witnesses who would testify, and describe the evidence to be presented.

Disposition

Judge James L. Cott entered a scheduling order setting deadlines and evidentiary requirements for the damages inquiry following the default judgment. The order did not award a specified amount of damages or attorneys’ fees.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.