McDaniel v. Scotch & Soda USA

Background

On March 26, 2024, Judge Denise L. Cote entered a default judgment as to liability in favor of Romaine McDaniel and against Scotch & Soda Retail LLC and Scotch & Soda, LLC. A default judgment is a judgment entered after a defendant fails to defend the case. The liability ruling did not determine the amount of damages. Judge Cote referred the matter to a magistrate judge for an inquest, meaning a proceeding to determine the appropriate damages and other monetary relief.

Requirements for McDaniel

The order required McDaniel to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by April 15, 2024. Her filing had to state the exact amount of damages or other monetary relief requested and the precise terms of any nonmonetary relief.

For actual damages, as opposed to statutory or nominal damages, McDaniel had to submit admissible evidence sufficient to allow the court to determine the amount with reasonable certainty. Declarations or affidavits could authenticate supporting documents. Each proposed factual finding had to cite the supporting declaration paragraph or documentary page, explain how the requested amount was calculated, and connect the damages to the legal claims against the defendants.

Any request for attorneys’ fees had to include authenticated, contemporaneous time records identifying the date of service, hours worked, hourly rate, and work performed for each timekeeper. McDaniel also had to provide admissible evidence about the attorneys’ backgrounds and qualifications and documentation of costs and expenses.

Before filing, McDaniel had to mail the proposed findings, supporting materials, and the order to the defendants at their last known address. She also had to file proof of that mailing.

Defendants’ response and possible hearing

The defendants could serve and file responses by April 29, 2024. The order stated that the court might decide the inquest solely from the parties’ written submissions. A party seeking an evidentiary hearing on damages had to explain why written submissions were insufficient, identify the witnesses who would testify, and describe the evidence to be presented.

Jurisdiction and liability checks

The order stated that, before entering a damages judgment, the court had to be satisfied that it had personal jurisdiction over the defendants and subject-matter jurisdiction over the action. It also stated that the court had to confirm that the complaint’s well-pleaded allegations, taken as true after default, were legally sufficient to establish liability for each asserted claim. The order warned that inadequate proof of service could result in denial of McDaniel’s request for a damages judgment.

Disposition

Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky issued a scheduling order for the damages inquest. The order set filing, service, and response deadlines and did not award a specific amount of damages.