Doe v. Baram
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:20-cv-09522
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Jane Doe v. Warren & Baram, Judge Figueredo denied WBM’s request to extend the deadline for opposing damages submissions after default.
Warren & Baram Management LLC was denied additional time to oppose Jane Doe’s damages submissions. Jane Doe’s damages inquest may proceed without a late opposition from WBM.
What happened
In Jane Doe v. Warren & Baram Management LLC, WBM failed to obtain a lawyer despite repeated warnings that a company cannot represent itself in court. The court entered default judgment against WBM, and the deadline for opposing Jane Doe’s damages submissions passed in December 2021.
WBM later obtained a lawyer and asked for more time to respond. WBM argued that Jonathan Baram did not understand the default and was incapacitated by depression. The court found that the record contradicted those explanations, that WBM had not adequately explained its delays, and that further delay would prejudice Jane Doe.
Judge Figueredo denied WBM’s request to extend the deadline under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b). The order leaves the damages inquest based on Jane Doe’s submissions to proceed without a late opposition from WBM.
The detailed version
- Doe v. Baram · No. 1:20-cv-09522
- Edgardo Ramos
- Mar. 22, 2024
Background
Jane Doe sued Jonathan Baram and Warren & Baram Management LLC (WBM). The court repeatedly warned Baram that WBM, as a corporation, had to retain a lawyer or risk default. WBM did not obtain counsel, and the Clerk entered default against it. On May 19, 2021, the court entered default judgment against WBM.
The court later referred the matter for an inquest—a proceeding to determine damages after a default judgment. The court ordered that any opposition to Jane Doe’s damages submissions be filed by December 29, 2021, and warned that it could issue a recommendation about damages based only on Jane Doe’s written submissions. WBM filed no opposition by that deadline.
WBM eventually obtained counsel on January 10, 2023. In December 2023, its counsel asked to reopen the damages briefing and hold an in-person hearing. The court directed WBM to seek an extension under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), which permits a court to extend an expired deadline when the party shows good cause and excusable neglect.
WBM’s Arguments
WBM argued that Baram did not understand what it meant for WBM to be in default. It also argued that Baram’s depression prevented him from obtaining counsel because he was the only person who could act for WBM. WBM did not explain why its counsel waited 11 months after appearing before seeking to reopen the damages briefing.
Court’s Analysis
Judge Figueredo concluded that WBM had not shown excusable neglect or good cause. The court found that Judge Edgardo Ramos had repeatedly explained the consequences of WBM’s failure to obtain counsel. The record also showed that Baram had said he would allow WBM to default and had described the default judgment as “volunteered.”
The court further found that the claim about Baram’s depression lacked supporting documentation or an affidavit from a treating professional. The record showed that Baram had filed documents, appeared at court proceedings, presented arguments, and attended a settlement conference during the relevant period. The court also found that WBM’s delay was not adequately shown to have been in good faith and that further delay would prejudice Jane Doe.
Disposition
The court denied WBM’s request for an extension of the long-expired deadline to oppose Jane Doe’s damages submissions. The order therefore did not allow WBM to reopen the inquest briefing on the basis presented.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.