1:20-cv-09522
S.D.N.Y.Jul 9, 2024Background
- Jane Doe filed suit against Jonathan Baram and Warren & Baram Management LLC (WBM) under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and state law claims.
- WBM failed to have counsel appear, resulting in a default judgment entered against WBM in May 2021.
- The case against Baram individually was dismissed by Doe, leaving only WBM as a defendant.
- WBM, through counsel who appeared much later, sought to set aside the default, arguing they had meritorious defenses, no willful default, and no prejudice to Doe.
- The Court found no final judgment was entered yet when such motions and appeals were made; ultimately, no new attorney appeared for WBM and no objection was filed to the Magistrate Judge’s Report & Recommendation (R&R).
- The R&R recommended $1,000,000 in damages, $142,570 in attorney’s fees, and $774 in costs to Doe, and the Court adopted it after no objections were timely raised by WBM.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Default judgment against WBM | Default properly entered due to lack of appearance | Default should be set aside for lack of willfulness and valid defenses | Default judgment stands; WBM can't proceed pro se |
| Appropriateness of Damages and Fees | Sought $1 million in damages, plus fees and costs | No specific objection made to R&R recommendations | Recommendation adopted in full |
| Right to Object to R&R | No objections filed; waiver by WBM | Sought more time, no formal objection submitted | Waived right to object; recommendation adopted |
| Corporate representation requirement | No challenge; observed WBM not represented | Baram claimed no affiliation with WBM | Corporation may not proceed pro se |
Key Cases Cited
- Enron Oil Corp. v. Diakuhara, 10 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 1993) (sets standards for setting aside default judgment)
- Kaplan v. Bank Saderat PLC, 77 F.4th 110 (2d Cir. 2023) (establishes corporation must be represented by counsel)
- Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298 (2d Cir. 1992) (failure to object to R&R waives right to appellate review)
- Caidor v. Onondaga County, 517 F.3d 601 (2d Cir. 2008) (waiver of right to object to R&R if not timely asserted)