India-Dan A/S v. Indasia, LLC, et al

Filing 138

ORDER..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for Revival of Judgment and Judgment Lien is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. The motion is GRANTED to the extent that the Consent Judgment dated April 28, 2005, in the amount of One Hundre d Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($125,000.00), is continued and revived against defendants Indasia, LLC, Henning Bollerslev, Hebo USA, L.L.C., and Bridget Bollerslev. In all other respects, the motion is DENIED.[Doc. 131]. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 7/8/15. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

INDIA-DAN A/S,
Plaintiff,
v.
INDASIA LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:02-CV-140 CAS

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for revival of a judgment previously
entered by this Court. For the following reasons, the motion will be granted in part, and denied in
part.
Rule 69(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
Process to enforce a judgment for the payment of money shall be a writ of execution,
unless the court directs otherwise. The procedure on execution, in proceedings
supplementary to and in aid of a judgment, and in proceedings on and in aid of
execution shall be in accordance with the practice and procedure of the state in which
the district court is held, existing at the time the remedy is sought, except that any
statute of the United States governs to the extent that it is applicable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a).
Under applicable Missouri law, “A judgment may be revived by order of the court that
entered it pursuant to a motion for revival filed by a judgment creditor within ten years after entry
of the judgment or the last prior revival of the judgment.” Rule 74.09(a), Missouri Rules of Civil
Procedure; see Mo. Rev. St. §§ 511.370-.430 (2000). “Upon the filing of a motion of revival of a
judgment, an order shall issue to the judgment debtor to show cause on a day certain why such
judgment should not be revived. The order to show cause shall be served pursuant to Rule 54 on

the judgment debtor, his successors in interest, or his legal representative.” Rule 74.09(b), Mo. R.
Civ. P. “If the judgment debtor, his successors in interest, or legal representatives fail to appear and
show cause why the judgment should not be revived, the court shall enter an order reviving the
judgment.” Rule 74.09(c).
On April 28, 2005, a Consent Judgment was entered in this case against defendants Indasia,
LLC, Henning Bollerslev, Hebo USA, L.L.C., Bridget Bollerslev, and Jose Casanova, jointly and
severally, in the amount of One Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($125,000.00). According
to the Court’s record, this judgment has not been satisfied. Plaintiff filed a motion for revival of the
judgment on April 24, 2015, which is within the ten-year time limit under Missouri law.
On June 8, 2015, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, which directed defendants
Indasia, LLC, Henning Bollerslev, Hebo USA, L.L.C., Bridget Bollerslev, and Jose Casanova to
appear for a hearing on July 7, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. at the Thomas F. Eagleton United States
Courthouse in St. Louis, Missouri, to show cause why the judgment plaintiff previously obtained
against them on April 28, 2005, should not be revived. The Court ordered plaintiff to personally
serve the June 8, 2015 Order to Show Cause on defendants.
Counsel for plaintiff and counsel for defendants Indasia, LLC, Henning Bollerslev, Hebo
USA, L.L.C., and Bridget Bollerslev appeared at the hearing on July 7, 2015.1 At the hearing,
counsel for Indasia, LLC, Henning Bollerslev, Hebo USA, L.L.C., and Bridget Bollerslev informed
the Court that his clients had no objection to the revival of the judgment. No one appeared at the
hearing on defendant Jose Casanova’s behalf. Plaintiff’s counsel had previously informed the Court
that he had been unable to obtain personal service on defendant Casanova.

1

Counsel for defendants appeared, by permission, telephonically.
-2-

The Court finds plaintiff is entitled to revival of the April 28, 2005 Consent Judgment with
regard to defendants Indasia, LLC, Henning Bollerslev, Hebo USA, L.L.C., and Bridget Bollerslev.
As defendant Casanova was not served with the Order to Show Cause pursuant to Rule 54 of the
Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure, which is mandatory under Rule 74.09(b), the Court will not
revive the judgment as to this defendant.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for Revival of Judgment and Judgment
Lien is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. The motion is GRANTED to the extent that
the Consent Judgment dated April 28, 2005, in the amount of One Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand
Dollars ($125,000.00), is continued and revived against defendants Indasia, LLC, Henning
Bollerslev, Hebo USA, L.L.C., and Bridget Bollerslev. In all other respects, the motion is DENIED.
[Doc. 131]

CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this

8th

day of July, 2015.

-3-