K2M Design, Inc. v. Schmidt Consulting Group, Inc.

S.D. New York

K2M Design, Inc. v. Schmidt Consulting Group, Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided July 28, 2023·No. 1:22-cv-03069·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK wn K2M DESIGN, INC., : Plaintiff, : ORDER -V.- : 22 Civ. 3069 (MKV) (GWG) SCHMIDT CONSULTING GROUP, INC., et al., : Defendants. : wn GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN, United States Magistrate Judge With regard to the motion for a default judgment as to defendant Peter K. Schmidt (Docket # 56), the request for attorneys’ fees cannot be determined under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1), as plaintiff asserts in Docket # 56 § 16. See Zulkoski v. Greene, 2021 WL 9275612, at *3 (D. Vt. May 20, 2021), adopted in relevant part, 2021 WL 9275613 (D. Vt. June 23, 2021). Accordingly, plaintiff is directed to file a memorandum of law and sworn statement that addresses the basis for the attorneys’ fees request. The memorandum of law shall make clear what case law (whether federal or state) governs the fee request and describe the legal principles that govern the request. The memorandum shall also explain why the total number of hours (which need to be calculated) are reasonable and why the hourly rates sought are reasonable. The filings shall make clear whether the records of fees already provided (Docket # 56-3) were made contemporaneously with the work performed. The sworn statement shall also make clear whether the fees sought relate specifically to fees as to the effort to obtain a judgment against Peter K. Schmidt. These filings shall be made on or before August 11, 2023. Dated: July 28, 2023 New York, New York

United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK wn K2M DESIGN, INC., : Plaintiff, : ORDER -V.- : 22 Civ. 3069 (MKV) (GWG) SCHMIDT CONSULTING GROUP, INC., et al., : Defendants. : wn GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN, United States Magistrate Judge With regard to the motion for a default judgment as to defendant Peter K. Schmidt (Docket # 56), the request for attorneys’ fees cannot be determined under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1), as plaintiff asserts in Docket # 56 § 16. See Zulkoski v. Greene, 2021 WL 9275612, at *3 (D. Vt. May 20, 2021), adopted in relevant part, 2021 WL 9275613 (D. Vt. June 23, 2021). Accordingly, plaintiff is directed to file a memorandum of law and sworn statement that addresses the basis for the attorneys’ fees request. The memorandum of law shall make clear what case law (whether federal or state) governs the fee request and describe the legal principles that govern the request. The memorandum shall also explain why the total number of hours (which need to be calculated) are reasonable and why the hourly rates sought are reasonable. The filings shall make clear whether the records of fees already provided (Docket # 56-3) were made contemporaneously with the work performed. The sworn statement shall also make clear whether the fees sought relate specifically to fees as to the effort to obtain a judgment against Peter K. Schmidt. These filings shall be made on or before August 11, 2023. Dated: July 28, 2023 New York, New York

United States Magistrate Judge

K2M Design, Inc. v. Schmidt Consulting Group, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

K2M Design, Inc. v. Schmidt Consulting Group, Inc. (K2M Design, Inc. v. Schmidt Consulting Group, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.