Surrey v. Surrey
- Rearden
- 1:23-cv-02603
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Surrey v. Surrey, Judge Rearden denied Ruth Surrey’s default-judgment motion without prejudice because she had not proved damages.
Ruth Surrey’s request for a default judgment against Lewis Surrey was denied without prejudice; the opinion leaves open a later renewed application after possible discovery from GPG Management.
What happened
In Surrey v. Surrey, Ruth Surrey asked the court to enter a judgment against Lewis Surrey because he had not defended the case. She also sought permission to obtain information from a third party to prove her damages.
The court denied the request for a default judgment without prejudice. It explained that Ruth Surrey had not provided enough evidence to establish the amount of damages, which must be determined before a default judgment can be entered.
Judge Rearden stated that Ruth Surrey may renew the request after obtaining discovery from GPG Management if the court allows her to serve a third-party subpoena. The court also directed the clerk to terminate the motion on the docket.
The detailed version
- Surrey v. Surrey · No. 1:23-cv-02603
- Rearden
- Mar. 20, 2024
Background
Ruth Surrey responded to the court’s order to show cause and moved for a default judgment against Lewis Surrey. She asked the court to decide liability and sought permission to take third-party discovery to establish her damages. The filing stated that she did not yet have complete records proving those damages.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that a default judgment cannot be entered until the amount of damages has been established. Even when a defendant defaults, the court must require evidence supporting the requested damages rather than automatically accepting the plaintiff’s calculation. The court concluded that Ruth Surrey had not met her burden to identify and prove the amount of damages to which she claimed entitlement.
Ruling
The court DENIED without prejudice Ruth Surrey’s motion for a default judgment. The court stated that, if she successfully renews her request for permission to serve a third-party subpoena under the court’s March 20, 2024 order, she may renew her default-judgment application after obtaining the requested discovery from GPG Management. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 22.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.