BMO Harris Bank N.A. v. A & M Trucking, Inc.
| BMO Harris Bank N.A. |
| A & M Trucking, Inc. and Mark D. Kuhn |
| 1:2017cv00598 |
| December 18, 2017 |
| US District Court for the District of Hawaii |
| Hawaii Office |
| Honolulu |
| UNASSIGNED |
| KENNETH J. MANSFIELD |
| Negotiable Instrument |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
29
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 27 ) AS MODIFIED - Signed by JUDGE HELEN GILLMOR on 8/20/2018. The Plaintiff� 39;s request for default judgment against Defendants is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff's request for damages for its breach of contract claim is GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded damages in the amount of $832,417.22 with inter est accruing on the principal amount due at the interest rate of $375.57 per day after May 1, 2018. Plaintiff must apply money or funds received from the Collateral to reduce the secured obligation, unless the money or funds are remitted t o Defendants. Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees for its national counsel, Husch Blackwell LLP, is DENIED. Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees for Christopher J. Muzzi, Esquire, is GRANTED IN PART. The Court awards Plaintiff $1,173.82 in attorneys' fees for the work performed by Mr. Muzzi in this case. The Court also awards Plaintiff $442.38 in costs. (emt, )
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Hawaii District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
