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

Rubin v. Trendland LLC

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:22-cv-09452
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Rubin v. Trendland LLC, Judge Aaron scheduled written submissions to determine damages after Judge Engelmayer entered a default judgment against Trendland LLC.

Who this affects

Laurie Rubin must submit evidence and legal support for damages and other monetary relief. Trendland LLC may respond to those submissions. The order also governs whether the damages inquest will be decided on written materials or after an evidentiary hearing.

What happened

In Rubin v. Trendland LLC, Judge Engelmayer had entered an order finding Laurie Rubin entitled to a default judgment against Trendland LLC. The opinion does not identify Rubin’s underlying claims or the amount sought.

Judge Engelmayer referred the case to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron to determine the nature of the judgment, including damages and other permitted monetary relief. Judge Aaron ordered Rubin to serve and file proposed findings, supporting evidence, and legal arguments by June 1, 2023. Trendland LLC could respond by June 22, 2023.

The order did not set a damages amount or enter the final monetary judgment. Instead, Judge Aaron explained that the damages proceeding could be decided from written submissions alone, unless a party justified the need for an evidentiary hearing.

The detailed version

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

Case
Rubin v. Trendland LLC · No. 1:22-cv-09452
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
Apr. 27, 2023

Background

On April 26, 2023, Judge Paul Engelmayer entered an order finding that Laurie Rubin was entitled to a default judgment against Trendland LLC. A default judgment is a judgment entered after a defendant does not defend the case, but the court may still require proof of the amount of damages and other relief.

Judge Engelmayer separately referred the case to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron for an inquest concerning the nature of the judgment to be entered. The opinion does not state Rubin’s underlying legal claims, the facts supporting those claims, or the amount of damages sought.

Orders for the damages inquest

Judge Aaron ordered Rubin to serve Trendland LLC and file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by June 1, 2023. The submission had to state the exact amount of damages or other monetary relief requested.

Rubin’s proposed findings had to connect the requested damages to her legal claims, explain how the amount was calculated, and include affidavits and supporting documents. Each proposed factual finding had to cite the supporting affidavit paragraphs or documentary evidence. Any allegations concerning liability had to cite the appropriate paragraphs of the complaint.

Instead of conclusions of law, Rubin could submit a legal memorandum explaining the legal rules supporting the requested damages, interest, or attorney’s fees. The submission also had to include an affidavit from a person with personal knowledge establishing that the court had authority over Trendland LLC and authority over the subject matter of the case. Any request for attorney’s fees had to include contemporaneous time records and information about counsel’s admission to the bar and hourly rate.

Trendland LLC was permitted to file a response to Rubin’s submissions by June 22, 2023.

Ruling and effect

Judge Aaron ordered that the damages inquest could be conducted solely on the parties’ written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing had to explain why written submissions were insufficient and identify the witnesses and evidence that would be presented. The order scheduled the process for determining damages and other monetary relief; it did not itself award a specific amount or enter the final monetary judgment. The order was signed by Stewart D. Aaron, United States Magistrate Judge.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.