Opinion ID: 1232901
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Hearing Prior to Dismissal

Text: The Joint Board's contention that the District Court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing prior to dismissing its breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim against Romanowicz is without merit. Under Rule 55(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, where a party has applied for a default judgment, the [district] court may conduct hearings or make referrals in order to, among other things, determine the amount of damages[,] establish the truth of any allegation by evidence[,] or investigate any other matter. Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2)(B-D) (emphasis added). In permitting, but not requiring, a district court to conduct a hearing before ruling on a default judgment, Rule 55(b) commits this decision to the sound discretion of the district court. We therefore review the District Court's decision for abuse of discretion. See Sims v. Blot, 534 F.3d 117, 132 (2d Cir.2008) (A district court has abused its discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, ... or rendered a decision that cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). The Joint Board asserts that the District Court erred inasmuch as it  sua sponte, undertook to analyze the substantive claims against Romanowicz without giving [the Joint Board] the opportunity to submit further evidence that would tend to show that Romanowicz acted as a fiduciary. Appellant's Br. 40. Our review of the record reveals that, notwithstanding its contention on appeal, the Joint Board never asked for a hearing, and one was not necessary. The Joint Board had ample opportunity to amend its complaint or supplement its allegations with evidence prior to moving for a default judgment against Romanowicz. In moving for default judgment, the Joint Board chose to rely on the allegations in its complaint as well as two declarations and seventeen exhibits that it submitted with its motion for a default judgment. The Joint Board not only failed to request a hearing but it assured the District Court that entry of a default judgment against Romanowicz would entail no findings of fact or disputed questions of law. J.A. 7. Similarly, the Joint Board did not ask for a hearing on its objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Following Romanowicz's default, there were no disputed issues of fact, and particularly in light of the Joint Board's failure to request a hearing, we have no trouble concluding that the District Court acted well within its discretion in proceeding without one.