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)
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?