Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05117/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05117-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 120
Nature of Suit: Marine Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1333 Admiralty

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGER LEASING CORP., a Nevada

corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Barge PT. POTRERO, official number

523213, in rem, TED BUHL and JANE

DOE BUHL, individually, and the

marital community composed thereof;

BUHL DIVING & SALVAGE, a sole

proprietorship, in personam

Defendants. 

AND ALL RELATED ACTIONS

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-05-5117 SC

ORDER DENYING

CLAIMANTS' MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION 

AND

ORDER GRANTING

CLAIMANTS' MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO RENEW MOTION

FOR COSTS SECURITY

 

I. INTRODUCTION

Following a three-day adversary hearing, this Court issued an

Order denying Claimants Riverview Equipment Company, LLC and

Jericho Products, Inc. ("Claimants") Motion to Quash Arrest. 

Presently before the Court are two motions brought by

Claimants. In the first, Claimants move for leave to file a

motion for reconsideration and in the second for leave to renew

their motion for costs security. 

For the reasons stated herein, the Court hereby DENIES

Claimants' motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration

and GRANTS Claimants' motion for leave to renew its motion for

costs security. 

//

// 

Case 3:05-cv-05117-SC Document 87 Filed 06/26/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Detailed descriptions of the facts have been set forth in

previous Orders of this Court. 

2

II. DISCUSSION

A. The Court Considered All Material Facts Before Issuing

Its Order

Claimants assert that the Court failed to consider all

material facts before issuing its Order.1 Specifically, Claimants

state that 

[w]hile the Court did credit Mr. Greger with confirming to

the Lind brothers that his deal with Buhl was "all good," it

did not acknowledge or address the testimony that Mr. Greger

expressly stated he was not going to enforce any "maritime

lien" against the barge.

Claimants' Memorandum in Support of Motion for Leave to File a

Motion for Reconsideration at 2 ("Clmts'. Mem.") 

As stated in its Order denying Defendants' motion for leave

to file for reconsideration, because the Court did consider all

material facts, including the testimony of all witnesses, prior to

issuing its Order, Claimants' motion for reconsideration is

unwarranted and futile. Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES

Claimants' motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. 

III. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW MOTION FOR COSTS SECURITY

Claimants ask the Court for leave to renew their motion for

costs security. Id. at 1. 

In its April 5, 2006 Order Re Motion to Quash Arrest and to

Compel Arbitration, the Court stated that it would allow Claimants

an opportunity to renew their motion for costs security. See

Docket No. 82 at 8. In accordance with that Order, the Court

GRANTS Claimants' motion for leave to renew their motion for costs

Case 3:05-cv-05117-SC Document 87 Filed 06/26/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

security.

IV. CONCLUSION

Because the Court considered all relevant evidence before

issuing its previous Order Re Motion to Quash Arrest, the Court

DENIES Claimants' motion for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration.

The Court, in accordance with that same Order, will allow

Claimants to renew their motion for costs security. Claimants'

motion for leave to so file is GRANTED. As soon as possible,

Claimants should schedule a motion hearing date with the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2006

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05117-SC Document 87 Filed 06/26/06 Page 3 of 3