Joe Brands LLC v. Edcmaker

Background

By an order dated July 21, 2023, Judge Louis L. Stanton granted a default judgment against Bingshuang Lu and Edcmaker. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger to conduct an inquest, meaning a proceeding to determine the amount of damages after liability was established by default.

Required Submission

The court ordered Joe Brands LLC to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning all damages and any other monetary relief allowed under the default judgment by August 28, 2023. The submission must state the exact dollar amount or other relief requested. The plaintiff may rely on earlier docket filings if they contain the required information and are identified in the new submission.

The proposed findings must connect the requested damages to the legal claims on which liability was established, explain how the plaintiff calculated the requested amount, and cite supporting affidavits or documentary evidence. The plaintiff must provide an affidavit from a person with personal knowledge establishing the court’s personal jurisdiction over the defendant and subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. Any allegations about liability must cite the relevant paragraphs of the complaint.

Attorney’s Fees and Legal Argument

Any request for attorney’s fees must include contemporaneous time records identifying, for each attorney, the date of service, hours worked, and work performed. The plaintiff must also provide each attorney’s years of bar admission, hourly rate, and information supporting the reasonableness of that rate. The legal conclusions must explain the legal basis for any fee award, including why the number of attorneys involved is entitled to fees. Instead of separate legal conclusions, the plaintiff may file a memorandum explaining the legal principles supporting damages, interest, and attorney’s fees.

Response, Hearing, and Service

Any defendant response to the plaintiff’s submissions was due to the plaintiff’s counsel and the court by September 18, 2023. The court stated that it might decide the damages inquest based only on written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing had to explain why written submissions were insufficient, identify the witnesses who would testify, and describe the evidence to be presented.

The order required service within the specified three-day deadlines and required the plaintiff to file proofs of service. Judge Lehrburger’s order directed the parties to develop the record needed to decide damages; it did not itself award a damages amount or attorney’s fees.