Associated Terminals of St. Bernard, LLC v. Potential Shipping HK Co. Ltd. et al
| Associated Terminals of St. Bernard, LLC |
| Potential Shipping HK Co. Ltd. and Unison Power M/V |
| Oakley Barge Line, Inc. and American Longshore Mutual Association, Ltd. |
| 2:2017cv05109 |
| May 22, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana |
| New Orleans Office |
| Orleans |
| Lance M Africk |
| Janis van Meerveld |
| Marine |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1333 |
| 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
135
ORDER AND REASONS: ORDERED that Ford shall recover from Potential Shipping the total amount of $260,748.61, as set forth herein, as well as prejudgment interest in the amount of 5% per annum and taxable costs. FURTHER ORDERED that Ford's 117 motion for judicial notice is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that, by 4/11/2018, Ford file a request for taxable costs with the Clerk through the procedures specified in Local Rule 54.3. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/28/2018.(blg)
|
|
Filing
110
ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that 93 Potential Shipping's objections are sustained in part and dismissed as moot in part, as set forth herein. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 2/16/2018.(jls)
|
|
Filing
75
ORDER AND REASONS denying 61 Motion for Leave to File Cross Claim. Signed by Magistrate Judge Janis van Meerveld on 12/14/2017. (ajn)
|
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.
