Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 14, 2023

Huang v. Valarhash LLC

Judge
Gregory Woods
Docket
1:22-cv-09973
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureEvidence
In one sentence

In Huang v. Valarhash LLC, Magistrate Judge Aaron ordered service and responses for a pending default-judgment motion and addressed how damages may be decided.

Who this affects

Haoyang Huang, Valarhash LLC, the other defendants, and their counsel were affected by the service, response, and damages-submission deadlines.

What happened

In Haoyang Huang v. Valarhash LLC et al., Huang had filed a motion asking the court to enter judgment because of the defendants’ default.

The court ordered Huang to serve the motion papers and the order on the defendants by August 18, 2023, and file proof of service. The defendants could respond by September 18, 2023. The court said it might decide damages from written submissions alone.

Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron ordered that any party seeking a hearing on damages explain why written submissions would not be enough and identify the witnesses and evidence the party would present. The order did not decide the motion for default judgment or damages.

The detailed version

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

Case
Huang v. Valarhash LLC · No. 1:22-cv-09973
Judge
Gregory Woods
Date
Aug. 14, 2023

Background

Haoyang Huang filed a motion for default judgment. The opinion does not state the underlying claims or explain the basis for the requested judgment.

Court’s Order

The court ordered Huang to serve the motion papers and a copy of the order on the defendants no later than August 18, 2023, and to file proof of service on the docket. The order permitted service by mail addressed to Cheyenne Zhang, Esq., of Zhang & Zhang Law Office.

The defendants were ordered to send any responses to Huang’s counsel and file them with the court by September 18, 2023.

Damages Procedure

The court notified the parties that it might determine damages based only on their written submissions. Any party seeking an evidentiary hearing on damages had to explain why the damages inquiry should not be conducted through written submissions alone, including identifying the witnesses who would testify and describing the evidence that would be presented.

Disposition

Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron entered these service, response, and damages-procedure instructions. The order did not grant or deny Huang’s motion for default judgment and did not determine damages.

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.