Grayson et al v. Cathcart et al

Filing 746

ORDER granting 742 Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54b; that this Order be deemed effective nunc pro tunc to the respective date of entry of each of the judgments listed in this Order. Signed by Chief Judge David C Norton on 4/28/10.(gjoh, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) CHARLES CATHCART, et. al. ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) ALAN M. GRAYSON, et. al. Civ. Action No.: 2:07-cv-593-DCN ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' JOINT MOTION FOR A DETERMINATION OF FINALITY OF JUDGMENTS AGAINST CERTAIN DEFENDANTS NUNC PRO TUNC THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon the joint motion of Plaintiffs Kevin Campbell, Chapter 7 Trustee of the Estate of Derivium Capital, LLC; Alan M. Grayson and The AMG Trust; General Holding, Inc.; Robert & Melanie Sabelhaus; Newton Family, LLC; and WCN/GAN Partners, Ltd. ("Plaintiffs") for an express determination that there is no just reason to delay in entering final judgments against certain defendants, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). IT APPEARS to the satisfaction of the Court that there is no just reason to delay in entering final judgments as to those defendants against whom default judgments have been obtained by the Grayson Plaintiffs, to wit: Grayson, et al. v. Cathcart, et al., No. 07-0593 (Aug. 30, 2007) (default judgment against Windward Isles Trust Co., Ltd.); Grayson, et al. v. Cathcart, et al., No. 07-0593 (Aug. 30, 2007) (default judgment against Optech Limited); Grayson, et al. v. Cathcart, et al., No. 07-0593 (Aug. 30, 2007) (default judgment against St. Vincent Trust Services, Ltd.); Grayson, et al. v. Cathcart, et al., No. 07-0593 (Aug. 30, 2007) (default judgment against St. Vincent Trust Company, Ltd.); Grayson, et al. v. Cathcart, et al., No. 07-0593 (Sept. 10, 2007) (default judgment against Javelin Ltd.); Grayson, et al. v. Cathcart, et al., No. 07-0593 (Dec. 3, 2007) (default judgment against Kristina Phelan); Grayson, et al. v. Cathcart, et al., No. 07-0593 (Dec. 3, 2007) (default judgment against Jeeves Group (Asia) Ltd.); Grayson, et al. v. Cathcart, et al., No. 07-0593 (Jan. 3, 2008) (default judgment against Pelican Trust Co., Ltd.); Grayson, et al. v. Cathcart, et al., No. 07-0593 (Jan. 3, 2008) (default judgment against Alexander Jeeves); Grayson, et al. v. Cathcart, et al., No. 07-0593 (Jan. 3, 2008) (default judgment against Lexadmin Trust, Reg.); Grayson, et al. v. Cathcart, et al., No. 07-0593 (June 2, 2008) (default judgment against The Jeeves Group); Grayson, et al. v. Cathcart, et al., No. 07-0593 (June 2, 2008) (default judgment against Bryan Jeeves); Grayson, et al. v. Cathcart, et al., No. 07-0593 (June 17, 2008) (default judgment against Joanna Overfield Bodell); Grayson, et al. v. Cathcart, et al., No. 07-0593 (July 1, 2008) (default judgment against Nigel Tebay); Grayson, et al. v. Cathcart, et al., No. 07-0593 (Dec. 9, 2008) (default judgment against Orangeburg Metal Treatment Co.). IT FURTHER APPEARS to the satisfaction of the Court that there is no just reason to 2 delay in entering final judgments as to those defendants who participated in the month-long trial before this Court that commenced on February 2, 2009 and against whom judgments have been obtained by the Grayson Plaintiffs, to wit: Grayson, et al. v. Cathcart, et al., No. 07-0593 (Nov. 24, 2009) (judgment against Charles Cathcart, Evelyn Cathcart, Yuri Debevc, Veridia, and DC USA). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Plaintiffs' motion be GRANTED, and that the above-listed judgments are final and appealable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order be deemed effective nunc pro tunc to the respective dates of entry of each of the above-listed judgments. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. ______________________________ The Honorable David C. Norton Charleston, South Carolina April 28, 2010 3

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?