Chadha et al v. Tech Matrix Infosolutions, Inc. et al

Filing 118

ORDER re 95 Motion for Default Judgment. The Court is terminating this motion for the reasons stated in the ATTACHED ORDER. Plaintiffs' subsequent filing at DE 113 is the operative motion at this juncture and the Court's review of the motion will proceed. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson on 8/21/2019. (Tomlinson, A.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------X
MUNISH CHADHA and CERNO
TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. INDIA,
Plaintiffs,
-against-

ORDER
CV 16-3739 (ENV) (AKT)

TECH MATRIX INFOSOLUTIONS, INC.,
CERNO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., SANJAY
CHADHA, and SANTUSHT BHATIA,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------X
A. KATHLEEN TOMLINSON, Magistrate Judge:
As counsel in this case are aware, the docket reflects that, technically, there are two
pending motions for damages and a permanent injunction that have been referred to this Court
for a Report and Recommendation: the motion filed on the docket at DE 95, and the second
motion filed at DE 113. As set forth below, the Court is terminating DE 95 as moot and limiting
its consideration exclusively to Plaintiffs’ motion filed at DE 113 (along with Defendants’
respective opposition papers).
On October 1, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment against the nonanswering Defendants in this case. See DE 95. Judge Bianco issued an Order on December 18,
2018 granting Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment as to liability and referring the motion to
this Court for a Report and Recommendation on the issue of damages. 1 See DE 100. No
opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion was ever filed. However, approximately two months later, on
February 14, 2019, Attorney Steve Altman filed a letter with the Court stating that he had been
retained to represent the Defendants and that he was requesting “an opportunity to be heard in

1

The case was subsequently reassigned to District Judge Eric N. Vitaliano. On
March 8, 2019, Judge Vitaliano also referred DE 95 to this Court for a Report and
Recommendation. See March 8, 2019 Electronic Order.

connection with” Plaintiffs’ pending motion. See DE 105. On February 15, 2019, this Court
issued an Order requesting clarification from Attorney Altman as to “whether [he] is seeking to
vacate the default, or whether he wants to be heard solely as to damages.” February 15, 2019
Electronic Order.
It was not until a month later -- March 13, 2019 -- when Attorney Altman filed a letter
with the Court “request[ing] an opportunity to submit a written opposition to Plaintiff’s motion,
and request[ing] that [he] be given until April 15, 2019 to do so.” DE 107. The letter did not
address the Court’s question raised in the February 15, 2019 Electronic Order. The next day,
Plaintiffs’ counsel filed an opposition to what he characterized as a “woeful and untimely
request” to oppose the motion. DE 108. Following that submission, the next day Attorney
Altman submitted a letter stating that “Defendants request only to be heard on damages at this
time.” DE 109. The Court then scheduled a telephone conference for March 22, 2019 to address
the Defendants’ request and Plaintiffs’ opposition. See March 22, 2019 Electronic Order.
During that conference, after hearing from both sides, the Court set a briefing schedule “on the
amount of damages to which Plaintiffs assert they are entitled.” DE 110. The motion was set to
be fully briefed by May 31, 2019. See id. The fully briefed motion was subsequently filed
between May 21 and May 31, 2019. See DE 111-114. Shortly after the filing of Plaintiffs’
motion, Defendants requested leave to submit a limited sur-reply limited. See DE 116. Based on
the grounds for the request, the Court granted the application and the sur-reply was filed on
June 12, 2019. See DE 117.
On June 3, 2019, Judge Vitaliano again referred Plaintiffs’ motion for damages to this
Court for a Report and Recommendation. See Electronic Order dated June 3, 2019; footnote 1,
supra. The Court must now reconcile the original version of Plaintiffs’ motion for default
judgment and damages filed at DE 95, with Plaintiffs’ second motion filed at DE 113. In light of
2

the fact that Plaintiffs’ motion at DE 95 was filed prior to both the appearance of Defendants’
counsel in the action and the subsequent briefing on the issue of damages, the Court in its
discretion is terminating DE 95 as moot. The Court will limit its consideration to Plaintiffs’
motion and Defendants’ opposition filed at DE 111 – 117 since these papers contain all relevant
filings in connection with and in opposition to Plaintiffs’ claim for damages and attorneys’ fees.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
August 21, 2019

/s/ A. Kathleen Tomlinson
A. KATHLEEN TOMLINSON
United States Magistrate Judge

3