A.P. Moller - Maersk A/S v. Ocean Express Miami et al 1:2006cv02778 | US District Court for the Southern District of New York

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Southern District A.P. Moller - Maersk A/S v. Ocean Express Miami et al

A.P. Moller - Maersk A/S v. Ocean Express Miami et al

Case Number:	1:2006cv02778
Filed:	April 10, 2006
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
Presiding Judge:	Robert W. Sweet
Nature of Suit:	Contract: Marine
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1333 Admiralty
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
April 14, 2010	Filing 87 OPINION: #98825 Upon the facts and conclusions stated above, the motion of Quality Print to vacate the attachment and alter and amend the Judgment is denied. The Court's November 4, 2009 Order suspending and staying the last paragraph of the Judgment is hereby vacated. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/14/2010) (jfe) Modified on 4/15/2010 (ajc).
August 18, 2009	Filing 68 OPINION:#97927 Upon the facts and conclusions stated above, the motion of Maersk for summary judgment on its second, third, fourth, and seventh causes of action is granted, and its motion for sanctions based upon Quality Print's civil contempt i s granted. As a result of Quality Print's abuse of process in obtaining grossly excessive security and its continued civil contempt, Quality Print is assessed damages in the amount of Maersk's interest costs on the $10 million cash bon d through May 4, 2009, the date on which the Supreme Court of the Republic of Panama reduced Maersk's cash security to $783,000. Maersk is also entitled to continuing interest costs on the remaining cash bond. In addition, Maersk is entitled to legal fees, including attorneys' fees and costs, in connection with the enjoined actions in Panama and Guatemala. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 8/18/09) (tro) Modified on 8/20/2009 (tro). Modified on 8/21/2009 (jab).

Date Filed

Document Text

April 14, 2010

Filing 87 OPINION: #98825 Upon the facts and conclusions stated above, the motion of Quality Print to vacate the attachment and alter and amend the Judgment is denied. The Court's November 4, 2009 Order suspending and staying the last paragraph of the Judgment is hereby vacated. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 4/14/2010) (jfe) Modified on 4/15/2010 (ajc).

August 18, 2009

Filing 68 OPINION:#97927 Upon the facts and conclusions stated above, the motion of Maersk for summary judgment on its second, third, fourth, and seventh causes of action is granted, and its motion for sanctions based upon Quality Print's civil contempt i s granted. As a result of Quality Print's abuse of process in obtaining grossly excessive security and its continued civil contempt, Quality Print is assessed damages in the amount of Maersk's interest costs on the $10 million cash bon d through May 4, 2009, the date on which the Supreme Court of the Republic of Panama reduced Maersk's cash security to $783,000. Maersk is also entitled to continuing interest costs on the remaining cash bond. In addition, Maersk is entitled to legal fees, including attorneys' fees and costs, in connection with the enjoined actions in Panama and Guatemala. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 8/18/09) (tro) Modified on 8/20/2009 (tro). Modified on 8/21/2009 (jab).

Access additional case information on PACER

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 New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: A.P. Moller - Maersk A/S v. Ocean Express Miami et al
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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?