ING Bank N.V. v. BULK FINLAND M/V
| ING Bank N.V. |
| BULK FINLAND M/V |
| Bomin Bunker Oil Corp. |
| 2:2015cv05975 |
| November 17, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana |
| New Orleans Office |
| Out of Country |
| Ivan L.R. Lemelle |
| Daniel E. Knowles |
| Marine |
| 46 U.S.C. ยง 31301 |
| 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
63
ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that the 29 , 30 motions for summary judgment are GRANTED, as set forth in document. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the 50 motion to lift stay is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 04/26/2019.(Reference: All Cases)(am)
|
|
Filing
46
ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that Bomin Bunker Oil Corp.'s 34 Motion to Stay is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties 29 , 30 Motions for Summary Judgment are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above cap tioned action shall be administratively closed, for statistical purposes only, without prejudice to the parties' right to reopen the case upon motion to lift the stay within thirty (30) days after the resolution of NuStar Energy Services, Inc. v. M/V COSCO AUCKLAND (Case No. 17-20246). FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE SUCH MOTION MAY LEAD TO SANCTIONS, INCLUDING DISMISSAL. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 6/28/2017. (Reference: All Cases)(mmv)
|
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 Louisiana Eastern 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.
