In re Sanctuary Belize Litigation
Filing
1386
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte on 12/14/2022. (ybs, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Civil No.:
PJM 18-3309
In re SANCTUARY BELIZE
LITIGATION
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The Motion for Order Approving and Authorizing Payment of Original Receiver's and
Professional's Fees and Costs From April 1,2021 Through October 26,2021 and for Related Relief
(EOF No. 1326) filed by the original receiver, Robb Evans & Associates LLC ("Robb Evans"),
came before this Court in December 2021. The Court granted this Motion insofar as approving the
Receiver's fees. The Court now considers the approval ofthe Receiver's actions and the release of
the Receiver and/or its agents from liability.
Robb Evans moves for the Court to order the following:
1. All actions and activities taken by or on behalf of Robb Evans and all payments made by
Robb Evans in connection with the administration of the receivership estate are approved
and confirmed.
2. Robb Evans, and its deputies, agents, employees, members, officers, independent
contractors, attorneys, accountants and representatives shall have no liability to any
person or entity for any action taken or not taken in connection with carrying out Robb
Evans's administration ofthe receivership estate, and the exercise of any powers, duties
and responsibilities in connection therewith.
3. Robb Evans, and its deputies, agents, employees, members, officers, independent
contractors, attorneys, accountants and representatives are released from all claims and
liabilities arising out of and/or pertaining to the receivership while Robb Evans was
Receiver, and all of the foregoing persons and entities except for Barnes & Thomburg are
relieved of all duties and responsibilities pertaining to the receivership.
ECFNo. 1326.
Defendants oppose this relief. They claim that the grant of such sweeping prospective relieffrom
future claims regarding actions or activities taken by Robb Evans is unauthorized, premature, and
contrary to law. ECF No. 1327. Defendants make three distinct arguments as to the inappropriate
nature ofthis relief.
They first cite to FTC v. Vemma Nutrition Co. where.the Receiver,coincidentally also Robb Evans,
was denied the broad release ofliability it requested. WL 7786476,at *1-2(D. Ariz. Sept. 8,2016).
The court in Vemma concluded that it "has no authority to grant sweeping prospective relief from
claims not yet brought and from parties unknown-that is the essence of an advisory ruling, which
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?