Foxmind Canada Enterprises LTD. v. Beijing Hui Xin Zhi Xiang Shangmao Youxian…

Background

The Clerk of Court entered a certificate of default against 19 defendants listed in an attachment to the certificate. The defendants did not respond to the district judge’s order requiring them to explain why default judgment and a permanent injunction should not be entered. The district judge later found that Foxmind was entitled to a default judgment against the defaulting defendants.

The district judge referred the case to Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses to conduct an inquest—a court review to determine damages and other appropriate judgment terms—and to issue a report and recommendation. Four defendants were voluntarily dismissed, leaving 15 remaining defaulting defendants.

Order

Judge Moses ordered Foxmind to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by May 12, 2023. The filing had to state the exact amount of damages or other monetary relief sought from each remaining defendant and the precise terms of any requested nonmonetary relief.

The order required evidence sufficient to allow the court to determine damages with reasonable certainty. If Foxmind sought actual damages, its proposed findings had to be supported by admissible declarations or affidavits and authenticated documents. Foxmind also had to explain how it calculated the requested amount and connect the damages to the legal claims against each defendant. Any request for attorneys’ fees had to include authenticated contemporaneous time records, information about each timekeeper’s qualifications, and evidence of costs and expenses.

Before entering judgment or awarding damages, the court stated that it had to be satisfied that it had personal jurisdiction over each remaining defendant and subject-matter jurisdiction over the action. The court also had to determine that the complaint’s well-pleaded allegations, which are treated as true after a default, were legally sufficient to establish each defendant’s liability for each asserted claim. The order warned that inadequate proof of service could result in denial of the damages request as to a defendant.

Foxmind was required to serve each remaining defendant with its proposed findings, supporting materials, and the order before filing them, and to file proof of service. The remaining defendants could respond by June 12, 2023. The court stated that it might conduct the damages inquest based solely on written submissions; a party seeking an evidentiary hearing had to explain why written submissions were insufficient and identify the expected witnesses and evidence.

Disposition and Classification

This opinion is a scheduling order for the damages inquest. It does not determine the amount of damages or enter the final damages judgment. The classification is procedural_order because the order manages the post-default damages process and requires further proof of jurisdiction, liability, and damages.