Ventura v. Putnam Gardens Parking Corp.

District Court, S.D. New York

Ventura v. Putnam Gardens Parking Corp.

Trial Court Opinion

MKC LAW GROUP WWW.MKCLAWGROUP.COM LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL Kk. CHONG, LLC NEW YORK: FORT LEE: HOBOKEN: 1250 BROADWAY, 36TH FL. STE. 300 2 EXECUTIVE DRIVE, STE. 240 300 HUDSON STREET. STE. 10 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10001 FORT LEE, NEW JERSEY 07024 HOBOKEN, NEW JERSEY 07024 (212) 726-1104 (201) 947-5200 (201) 708-6675 FAX (212) 726-3104 FAX (201) 708-6676 FAX (201) 708-6676 * Please Reply to: FORT. EMAIL: [email protected] Plaintiff may have until 5/10/21 to serve and file his Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, April 12, 2021 and defendant Putnam Gardens Parking Corp. may have until 6/9/21 to file a response. Together with his Honorable Debra Freeman, U.S.M.J. Proposed Findings, Plaintiff is directed to serve United States District Court defendant with a copy of this Order, as well as a copy ni of the Court's prior 2/8/21 Scheduling Order. Southern District of New York SO ORDERED Dated: 4/12/202 Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007-1312 felts DEBRA FREEMAN United States Magistrate Judge Re: Ventura v. Putnam Gardens Parkin Corp. et. al.

Dear Judge Freeman: This office represents Plaintiff in the above captioned matter. Default Judgment has been entered against Defendant Putnam Gardens Parking Corp. Judge Koetl referred this matter to Your Honor for an inquest on damages. Your Honor entered a Scheduling Order requiring submissions for the inquest on damages by March 10, 2021. A copy of the Scheduling Order is attached. Through inadvertence, the due date for the submissions was not calendared. I only discovered today that the due date for the submissions had not been calendared while conducting a periodic review of the docket sheets for all of my cases. Based on the above, I respectfully request an extension until May 10, 2021 to make the required submissions. Thank you for your consideration of my request. Respectfully submitted, s/Michael K. Chong Michael K. Chong

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOEL VENTURA, 20cv00119(JGK) (DF) Plaintiff, SCHEDULING ORDER -against- FORA DAMAGES INQUEST PUTNAM GARDENS PARKING CORP., Defendant. DEBRA FREEMAN, United States Magistrate Judge: On February 1, 2021, after finding that plaintiff Joel Ventura (“Plaintiff”) was entitled to a default judgment against defendant Putnam Gardens Parking Corp. (“Defendant”) (Dkt.33), the Honorable John G. Koeltl.,U.S.D.J., referredthis wage-and-hour case to this Court for the purpose of conducting adamages inquest (Dkt. 34). In this regard, this Court notes that, in connection with his underlying motion for a default judgment, Plaintiff submitted an unsigned declaration setting out the hours he worked for Defendant and the wages he was paid (see Dkt.26-1), and, in addition, Plaintiff’s counsel submitted both damages calculations (see Dkt.27; 27-4) and an attorney declaration regarding the attorneys’ fees and costs that hadbeen incurred in the case (seeDkt. 27-5). Defendant has not responded, to date, to any of these submissions. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff shall file Proposed Findingsof Fact and Conclusions of Law (“Proposed Findings”) with respect to damages, and serve them on Defendant, no later than March 10, 2021. Plaintiff shall include, with such service, a copy of this Order. 2. Plaintiff’s Proposed Findings should specifically tie the proposed damages figure(s) to the legal claim(s) on which liability has now been establishedagainst Defendant; should demonstrate how Plaintiff has arrived at the proposed damages figure(s); and should be supported by a sworn affidavit, or a declaration under penalty of perjury, that attaches as exhibits and contains an explanation of any documentary evidence that helps establish the proposed damages. 3. Further, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks attorneys’ fees and litigation costs, Plaintiff's submissions should: a. provide copies of his attorneys’ contemporaneous time records, so that this Court may assess whether the requested fees are reasonable, see New York Ass’n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey,

711 F.2d 1136, 1148

(2d Cir. 1983); b. address the reasonableness of the hourly rates of the attorneys working on the matter and their support staff, see Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass’n vy. Cnty. of Albany,

522 F.3d 182, 190

(2d Cir. 2008); and c. provide copies of invoices or other documentation substantiating the amount of costs that have been incurred. 4. To the extent such information — regarding both the proposed damages and the requested attorneys’ fees and costs — has already been submitted by Plaintiff (see Dkts. 26 and 27, as referenced above), Plaintiff may, if he wishes, rely on his earlier submissions, but he should then attach duplicate copies as exhibits to his Proposed Findings. Further, unlike the affidavit of Plaintiff that was previously been submitted (Dkt. 26-1), any affidavit or declaration by Plaintiff should be executed, although it may be signed electronically or sworn by remote means. 5. Defendant shall submit a response, if any, to Plaintiff's Proposed Findings no later than April 9, 2021. Defendant is cautioned that, as a corporate entity, it may not appear in this Court without an attorney, and therefore any response that it seeks to file, including any

request for a hearing on damages, must be made through counsel for that response to be considered by the Court. 5. IF DEFENDANT FAILS TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S SUBMISSIONS BY APRIL 9, 2021, THEN THIS COURT WILL PROCEED TO ISSUE A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING DAMAGES ON THE BASIS OF PLAINTIFF’S WRITTEN SUBMISSION ALONE. FURTHER, THIS COURT WILL NOT HOLD A HEARING ON DAMAGES, UNLESS DEFENDANT REQUESTS A HEARING, IN WRITING, BY APRIL 9, 2021. See Action S.A. v. Marc Rich & Co.,

951 F.2d 504, 508

(2d Cir. 1991) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2) “allows but does not require . .. a hearing”); Fustok v. ContiCommodity Servs. Inc.,

873 F.2d 38

, 40 (2d Cir. 1989) (“[I]t [is] not necessary for the District Court to hold a hearing, as long as it ensured that there was a basis for the damages specified in a default judgment.”). Dated: New York, New York February 8, 2021 SO ORDERED

Loli Zea DEBRA FREEMAN United States District Judge Copies to: Plaintiff's counsel (via ECF)

Reference

Status
Unknown