Ray Capital Inc et al v. M/V Newlead Castellano et al

Filing 97

ORDER granting 86 Third Motion In Custodia Legis Expenses in the amount of $9,320.54 USD, which, together with the $695,370.37 USD previously authorized by the Court's Orders dated July 14 and September 12, 2016 (Docs. 48, 81), covers in custodia legis expenses incurred by Plaintiffs through August21, 2016. (Doc. 86-1, at 2-3, 6-7.) Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 10/07/2016. (thb)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED FOR THE STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION IN ADMIRALTY RAY CAPITAL INC.; CAPITAL LTD.; LTD.; OPPENHEIM * CHEYENNE HOLDINGS and LABROY SHIPTRADE * * LIMITED, * Plaintiffs, * v. * M/V NEWLEAD CASTELLANO, IMO NO. 9686338, her engines, tackle, equipment, furniture, appurtenances, etc., in rem, * * * * and NEWLEAD CASTELLANO LTD., CV 416-093 * Defendants. * ORDER On May 26, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking, inter alia, the authorization of certain in custodia legis expenses in the amount April 19, 2016, the of $455,407.20 USD 2016 through June 30, Court requested relief. Court's order, entered (Doc. an incurred or 2016. order 48.) Defendants were to be incurred from (Doc. 28.) granting the On July 14, aforementioned Pursuant to the terms given seven (7) days of the to respond to any future motions filed by Plaintiffs seeking authorization of in custodia legis expenses. Plaintiffs filed their Second (Id. Motion SI 3. ) to On August Authorize In 9, 2016, Custodia Legis Expenses seeking the authorization of certain additional in custodia legis expenses, in its Order dated July above those authorized by the Court 14, 2016 (Doc. 48), $239,963.17 USD incurred through August 8, August 17, Distribute 2016, Proceeds the proceeds Court's Plaintiffs in an expenses motions, for a Plaintiffs of 2016, seeking amount requested total Court the Sale 2016. their a the amount of 69.) On Motion to (Doc. First partial distribution of from the sale of the Vessel presently held in the registry custodia of filed in amount $695,370.37 entered Second Motion to Authorize sufficient in an satisfy Plaintiffs' requested USD. to (Doc. order: to (a) in aforementioned be 77.) those distributed On September granting to 12, Plaintiffs' In Custodia Legis Expenses and First Motion to Distribute Proceeds of Sale, and authorizing the Clerk to disburse to Plaintiffs $695,370.37 USD from the funds held in the Court's registry in relation to this matter. On September 27, to Authorize authorization of In 2016, (Doc. 81.) Plaintiffs filed their Third Motion Custodia Legis certain additional in Expenses custodia seeking the legis expenses, above those authorized by the Court in its Order dated September 12, 2016, in the amount of $9,320.54 USD incurred through August 21, 2016.1 1 (Doc. 86.) Defendants' response to that motion was The subject vessel for which Plaintiffs have incurred in custodia legis expenses in relation to this matter was sold to a third party via interlocutory admiralty sale on August 8, 2016, and this sale was confirmed by the Court on August 16, 2016. (Docs. 66, 75.) On August 19, 2016, a bill of sale was issued to the third-party buyer for the subject vessel. (Doc. therefore due on or before October 4, 2016; to date, Defendants have failed to respond to Plaintiffs' motion. Upon due In Authorize the dated July custodia 21, Custodia amount $695,370.37 2016. consideration, of USD previously Expenses $9,320.54 14 and September legis (Doc. expenses 86-1, ORDER ENTERED October, Legis at Plaintiffs' USD, (Doc. 2016 incurred at 2-3, 86) which, authorized 12, Third by Motion GRANTED, is to in together by the (Docs. 48, Plaintiffs with Court's 81), the Orders covers through in August 6-7.) Augusta, Georgia, this /r/^ day of 2016. HALL STATES DISTRICT JUDGE UTHfiRN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 79.) At 10:42 a.m. on August 21, the third-party buyer. 2016, the subject vessel was delivered to (Doc. 86-1, IS.)

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?