Filed: Feb. 28, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 28, 2020
Summary: ORDER ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN , District Judge . Plaintiff Michael Dimas filed this suit for damages on August 28, 2018, under The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, and New York State and City human rights laws, in connection with Plaintiff's work as a delivery driver for Defendants. All of the above-named Defendants were voluntarily dismissed on March 1, 2019, with two exceptions: MAPF Ventures LLC ("MAFP") and Julien Khalaf. See ECF No. 31.
Summary: ORDER ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN , District Judge . Plaintiff Michael Dimas filed this suit for damages on August 28, 2018, under The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, and New York State and City human rights laws, in connection with Plaintiff's work as a delivery driver for Defendants. All of the above-named Defendants were voluntarily dismissed on March 1, 2019, with two exceptions: MAPF Ventures LLC ("MAFP") and Julien Khalaf. See ECF No. 31. ..
More
ORDER
ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, District Judge.
Plaintiff Michael Dimas filed this suit for damages on August 28, 2018, under The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, and New York State and City human rights laws, in connection with Plaintiff's work as a delivery driver for Defendants. All of the above-named Defendants were voluntarily dismissed on March 1, 2019, with two exceptions: MAPF Ventures LLC ("MAFP") and Julien Khalaf. See ECF No. 31. In July 2019, I granted a motion by MAPF's counsel to withdraw, and noted that, because MAFP is an entity incapable of appearing pro se, failure by MAFP to retain counsel on or before September 13, 2019 would result in my entering default in favor of Plaintiff. See ECF No. 45. On February 26, 2020,1 upon proof that MAFP and Khalaf had both been timely served,2 and had nonetheless failed to answer, the Clerk of Court entered a default in Plaintiff's favor against both MAFP and Khalaf. See ECF Nos. 62, 63. Now before the Court is Plaintiffs motion fo default judgment against these same two parties. See ECF Nos. 64, 65, 66.
Having reviewed Plaintiffs Complaint, see ECF No. 1, I am satisfied that Defendants MAFP and Khalaf are indeed liable. However, this does not resolve the question as to the appropriate damages. See, e.g., American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection & lndem. Assoc., Inc. v. Triumph Maritime Ltd., 18-cv-8615, 2019 WL 6318428, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2019) ("ASOMP") ("[A]fter a court has determined that entry of default judgment against a defendant... is appropriate, the court must conduct an inquiry in order to ascertain the amount of damages with reasonable certainty by determining the proper rule for calculating damages on such a claim, and assessing plaintiffs evidence supporting the damages to be determined under this rule.") (quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs moving papers seeking default judgment ask for $500,000 in damages, but do not explain how this figure was reached, or include any means by which the Court can calculate the loss. As such, Plaintiff is directed as follows:
1. On or before March 13, 2020, Plaintiff shall submit any and all documentation necessary to substantiate Plaintiffs claimed damages.
2. Plaintiff shall accompany this submission with a memorandum that explains how these damages comport with the "proper rule for calculating damages," ASOMP, 2019 WL 6318428, at *2, under Plaintiffs varied causes of action.
3. Plaintiff shall also submit an updated proposed defaultjudgment. See, e.g., S.D.N.Y. Local Civil Rule 55.2(b).
In sum, default judgment is granted in Plaintiffs favor. However, given Plaintiffs evidentiary shortcomings at this time, the question of damages will await further consideration by the Court.
SO ORDERED.
