Branch Banking and Trust Company v. Market Logistics Inc et al
Branch Banking and Trust Company |
Market Logistics Inc, Michael G Cale and Mildred J Cale |
6:2016cv00280 |
January 29, 2016 |
US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
Greenville Office |
XUS, Outside State |
Henry M Herlong |
Negotiable Instrument |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 13 DEFAULT JUDGMENT in favor of Branch Banking and Trust Company against Market Logistics Inc, Michael G Cale, Mildred J Cale. (abuc) |
Filing 12 OPINION & ORDER granting 10 Motion for Default Judgment. The Clerk of Court is hereby instructed to enter default judgment (1) jointly and severally against Defendants Market Logistics, Inc, Michael Cale, and Mildred Cale i n the amount of $5,151,374.85, plus $772,706.23 in attorney's fees and collection costs, and (2) jointly and severally against Defendants Market Logistics, Inc. and Michael Cale in the amount of $15,454,124.60, plus attorney' s fees and collection expenses of $134,432.97. BB&T is entitled to only one recovery of actual damages and legal fees against any and all of the Defendants, and one recovery of treble damages against the Defendants Market Logistics, Inc. and Michael Cale, with an offset for these Defendants of any actual damages recovered by BB&T. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 6/2/2016.(abuc) |
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 South Carolina 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.