MC-UA Local 119 Health and Welfare Fund et al v. Air Comfort Company, Inc. et al

Filing 133

Order for plaintiffs to reply to each of the claimant's responses, as set out, setting forth all those reasons why they, rather than said claimants are entitled to the monies deposited with the Court. ( Responses due by 1/24/2012). Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 1/10/2012. (cmj)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MC-UA LOCAL 119 HEALTH &
WELFARE FUND, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
AIR COMFORT CO., INC., and
STANLEY SMALL, individually,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-00119-KD-C

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a review of the responses (Docs. 127, 129-132) to this
Court’s December 2, 2011 Order regarding Plaintiffs’ Affidavit of Garnishment (Doc. 108),
Garnishee Elias J. Saad’s Answer (Doc. 109), Writ of Garnishment (Doc. 110), and Plaintiffs’
“Consolidated Motion to Condemn Garnished Funds Held by Court” (Doc. 111).
Specifically, in response to the Court’s December 2, 2011 Order (Doc. 112), the
following entities have appeared in this case and filed claims to the assets Plaintiffs seek to
condemn and garnish (namely, certain monies paid by the Gulf Coast Claims Facility to
Defendant Air Comfort Company, Inc. in response to BP oil spill Claim No. 1624952): Whitney
National Bank (Doc. 131), BancorpSouth Bank, Inc. (Doc. 132), Wittichen Supply Company,
Inc. (Docs. 129, 130), and Climatic Comfort Products, LLC (Doc. 127).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file a reply to each of the above-listed
claimant’s responses no later than January 24, 2012, setting forth all those reasons (with
relevant case law) why they, rather than said claimants, are entitled to the monies deposited with

1

the Court from the Gulf Coast Claims Facility Fund.1
DONE and ORDERED this the 10th day of January 2012.
/s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Plaintiffs have already filed a reply to Climatic Comfort Product, LLC’s response and
claim (Doc. 128). As such, no additional Reply to this response is necessary.
2