Mercedes v. Underground Liquidation Inc.

Background

This was a scheduling order for a damages inquiry after default. On January 30, 2024, Judge Valerie E. Caproni entered a default judgment in favor of Cesar Mercedes and against Underground Liquidation Inc., doing business as Magic Mattress R Us, as to liability. Judge Caproni then referred the case to Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky to conduct an inquiry and issue a report and recommendation about the amount of damages, if any, to award.

Required Filing

The order required Plaintiff to file proposed findings of fact and legal conclusions by February 23, 2024. The filing had to state the exact amount of monetary relief sought and the precise terms of any nonmonetary relief. If Plaintiff sought actual damages, the filing had to include admissible declarations or affidavits and supporting documents sufficient to allow the Court to determine the amount with reasonable certainty. Each proposed factual finding had to cite the supporting declaration paragraph or documentary page and explain how the claimed amount related to Plaintiff’s legal claims.

The filing also had to address jurisdiction. The Court stated that, even after a default, it had to be satisfied that it had personal jurisdiction over Defendant and subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. It warned that inadequate proof of service could result in denial of Plaintiff’s request for a damages judgment. The proposed legal conclusions also had to explain why the Complaint’s well-pleaded allegations, treated as true after default, established liability for each asserted cause of action.

Any request for attorneys’ fees had to include authenticated, contemporaneous time records showing the date, hours, rate when applicable, and work performed for each timekeeper. Plaintiff also had to provide evidence of the attorneys’ identities, backgrounds, qualifications, costs, and expenses.

Service, Response, and Possible Hearing

Before filing, Plaintiff had to mail Defendant the proposed findings, legal conclusions, supporting materials, and a copy of the order at Defendant’s last known address. Plaintiff had to file proof of that mailing. Defendant could serve and file responses by March 8, 2024.

The Court notified the parties that it might decide the damages inquiry solely 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.

Disposition

Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky entered a scheduling order governing the damages inquiry. The order did not determine the amount of damages, award attorneys’ fees, conduct a hearing, or itself decide the parties’ underlying claims.