Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 17, 2023

Cortes v. P&N Towing Collision Paint Inc.

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:22-cv-10345
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureFee Petition
In one sentence

In Cortes v. P&N Towing Collision Paint Inc., Judge Wang ordered written submissions to determine damages after defendants defaulted.

Who this affects

Victor Cortes and the defendants identified as defaulting defendants, including P&N Towing Collision Paint Inc., Pedro Taller, and Carlos Espinosa.

What happened

In Cortes v. P&N Towing Collision Paint Inc., the case was referred to Judge Ona T. Wang for an inquest, a proceeding to determine damages, after some defendants failed to defend the case.

Judge Wang ordered Victor Cortes to submit proposed factual findings, legal conclusions, and evidence supporting damages, attorney’s fees, and costs by May 19, 2023. Cortes also had to serve those materials on the defaulting defendants and file proof of service by that date. The defendants could file opposition papers by June 9, 2023.

Judge Wang stated that the damages proceeding might be decided from written submissions alone. Any party requesting a hearing had to explain why it was needed and identify the additional evidence to be presented. The order did not determine the amount of damages or fees.

The detailed version

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

Case
Cortes v. P&N Towing Collision Paint Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-10345
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
Apr. 17, 2023

Background

The court stated that the matter had been referred to Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang for an inquest following a default. The opinion identifies the plaintiff as Victor Cortes and the defendants as P&N Towing Collision Paint Inc., Pedro Taller, and Carlos Espinosa. It refers to the defendants who defaulted as the “Defaulting Defendants,” as defined in a prior docket entry.

Order

The court ordered Cortes to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, along with an inquest memorandum explaining and supporting his requested damages, by May 19, 2023. The proposed damages had to be supported by documents and/or affidavits. Cortes also had to provide documentation supporting any requested attorney’s fees and costs.

Cortes was required to serve those materials on the Defaulting Defendants and file proof of service on the docket by May 19, 2023. The order separately required service of the order itself and filing of proof of that service by April 24, 2023. The defendants could file opposition papers by June 9, 2023.

Possible Hearing

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

Disposition and Effect

The order set procedures and deadlines for deciding damages after a default. It did not award a specific amount of damages, attorney’s fees, or costs, and it did not state that an evidentiary hearing would occur. Because the order concerned an inquest following a default rather than an adversarial decision on the underlying claims, it is classified as a procedural 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.