Burns v. Scott

Full title: ROBERT BURNS, on his own behalf and on behalf others similarly situated…

Court: United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Nov 17, 2021

Civil Action 20 Civ. 10518 (JGK) (SLC) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2021)

Opinion

Civil Action 20 Civ. 10518 (JGK) (SLC)

11-17-2021

ROBERT BURNS, on his own behalf and on behalf others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GABRIEL SCOTT and SHIFT HOSPITAL, LLC, Defendants.

SARAH L. CAVE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

ORDER

SARAH L. CAVE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

On October 13, 2021, this matter was referred to me to conduct an inquest and to issue a report and recommendation concerning Plaintiff's damages. (ECF No. 26). On October 14, 2021, the Court directed Plaintiff to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning damages no later than November 12, 2021. (ECF No. 27). To date, Plaintiff has neither filed his proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning damages nor requested an extension of the now-lapsed deadline to do so.

Nonetheless, the Court sua sponte extends Plaintiff's deadline to file the materials necessary for the Court to ascertain his damages. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff shall submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning damages no later than November 24, 2021. Plaintiff must support all factual assertions by affidavit and/or other evidentiary material. Plaintiff's requested attorneys' fees and costs must be recorded in the form below, adding fields as necessary, and supported by evidentiary material.

2. Defendants shall submit their response to Plaintiff's submissions, if any, no later than December 15, 2021. IF DEFENDANTS (1) FAIL TO

RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S SUBMISSIONS, OR (2) FAIL TO CONTACT MY CHAMBERS BY DECEMBER 15, 2021 AND REQUEST AN IN-COURT HEARING, I INTEND TO ISSUE A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING DAMAGES BASED ON PLAINTIFF'S WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ALONE WITHOUT AN IN-COURT HEARING. See Transatlantic Marine Claims Agency, Inc. v. Ace Shipping Corp., 109 F.3d 105, 111 (2d Cir. 1997) (“‘[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.'” (quoting Fustok v. ContiCommodity Services Inc., 873 F.2d 38, 40 (2d Cir. 1989))).

Plaintiff is directed to serve this Order on Defendants and file proof of service by no later than November 24, 2021.

Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply to this Order may cause the Court to issue an order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).

SO ORDERED.