Filed: Aug. 02, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 02, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER LEONARD P. STARK , District Judge . At Wilmington this 2 nd day of August, 2019: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1 Plaintiff Praxis Energy Agents Pte Ltd's ("Praxis") motion for reconsideration (D.I. 53) is DENIED. 2 Praxis has not established that any of the circumstances under which reconsideration is warranted are present. 3 The Brazil court's decision in December 2018 — several months after the Court granted partial summary judgment for Sithonia Shipholding S
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER LEONARD P. STARK , District Judge . At Wilmington this 2 nd day of August, 2019: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1 Plaintiff Praxis Energy Agents Pte Ltd's ("Praxis") motion for reconsideration (D.I. 53) is DENIED. 2 Praxis has not established that any of the circumstances under which reconsideration is warranted are present. 3 The Brazil court's decision in December 2018 — several months after the Court granted partial summary judgment for Sithonia Shipholding S...
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
LEONARD P. STARK, District Judge.
At Wilmington this 2nd day of August, 2019:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:1
Plaintiff Praxis Energy Agents Pte Ltd's ("Praxis") motion for reconsideration (D.I. 53) is DENIED.2 Praxis has not established that any of the circumstances under which reconsideration is warranted are present.3 The Brazil court's decision in December 2018 — several months after the Court granted partial summary judgment for Sithonia Shipholding S.A. ("Sithonia")4 — to release the security posted in Brazil, may be a new development (see D.I. 54 at 1), but it has no impact on the Court's analysis. The issue the Court decided was whether, at the time the Vessel was arrested on May 12, 2017, Praxis had a valid basis to do so, and the Court found (correctly, the Court continues to believe) that Praxis did not. (See, e.g., D.I. 46 at 14-15) ("Praxis' maritime lien is tied up in the security held by the Brazil Court and, therefore, Praxis did not have a valid maritime lien to cause the Vessel to be arrested in Delaware.") Events subsequent to May 12, 2017 and subsequent to the Court's decision do not alter this conclusion. As an independent and entirely sufficient basis to deny Praxis' motion, the Court finds it is untimely, since it was not filed until 71 days after the Brazil court's December 17, 2018 decision that purportedly gives rise to Praxis' motion.5 Relatedly, Praxis points to no sufficient explanation for why it waited until its motion for reconsideration to submit an affidavit from an expert on Brazilian law.
Defendant Sithonia's motion for partial summary judgment6 (D.I. 52) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renew after the Court reviews the forthcoming status report, subject to any further order of the Court. The Court recognizes that at some point (perhaps soon) it may have to determine if, in fact, Sithonia should be considered the "prevailing party" (an issue on which the Court is inclined to agree with Sithonia, because the lone count asserted by Praxis has been resolved in Sithonia's favor) and an intended beneficiary who may enforce Section 22.038 of Praxis' Terms and Conditions (on which the Court is inclined to agree with Praxis). The parties have not apprised the Court of any developments that may have occurred in the Brazil litigation since December 2018, if there have been any. Nor did the parties know until today that the Court has decided to deny the motion for reconsideration. Nor is the Court confident it understands whether either party contemplates further discovery or proceedings relating to one, both, or neither of Sithonia's counterclaims. Under the circumstances, the most appropriate course of action is for the Court to receive an update from the parties, obtain the parties' views on whether final judgment should now be entered and, thereafter, determine (if Sithonia continues to press its request for attorneys fees) whether Sithonia should recover any portion of its attorney fees incurred in the instant action and/or in Brazil.
Praxis' motion for summary judgment (D.I. 56) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renew after the Court reviews the forthcoming status report, subject to any further order of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer and, no later than August 16, 2019, submit a joint status report, indicating what, if anything, the Court should next do in this matter. Should the parties be in agreement that the case is now ripe for entry of final judgment, they shall submit a proposed form of order for the Court to enter.