IN RE DEEP MARINE HOLDINGS, INC. Case No. 09-39313, Adversary No. 10-03271.
IN RE: DEEP MARINE HOLDINGS, INC., et al, Chapter 11, Debtor(s). DEEP MARINE 1, LLC, et al, Plaintiff(s), v. DEEP MARINE LIQUIDATING TRUST (AS SUCCESSOR TO DEEP MARINE HOLDINGS, INC., DEEP MARINE TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED, DEEP MARINE 1, LLC, AND DEEP MARINE 2, LLC), et al, Defendant(s).
United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division.
March 7, 2011.
MARVIN ISGUR, Bankruptcy Judge.
On February 2, 2011, John Bittner, as Liquidating Trustee for the Deep Marine Liquidating Trust, filed the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Resolving Claims Related to Bunkers and Lubes (ECF No. 132). The motion dealt with Deep Marine Technology's ("DMT") claim to various bunkers and lubes ("Bunkers & Lubes") that were sold for $113,181.20. As set forth below, the Court grants Bittner's motion for partial summary judgment.
Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment should be granted "if the pleadings, the discovery, and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED R. CIV. P. 56(c); Gray Law LLP v. Transcon. Ins. Co.,
A party seeking summary judgment must demonstrate: (i) an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's claims or (ii) an absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Sossamon v. Lone Star State of Tex.,
"The moving party bears the burden of establishing that there are no genuine issues of material fact." Norwegian Bulk Transp. A/S v. Int'l Marine Terminals P'ship,
If the movant bears the burden of proof on an issue, a successful motion must present evidence that would entitle the movant to judgment at trial. Malacara v. Garber,
If the movant does not bear the burden of proof, the movant must show the absence of sufficient evidence to support an essential element of the opposing party's claim. Norwegian Bulk Transp. A/S, 520 F.3d at 412; Ballard v. Burton,
The Bunkers & Lubes were located on the DMT Diamond vessel (the "Diamond"). Debtor DM1 owned the Diamond. The Diamond was subsequently sold along with the Bunkers & Lubes. The proceeds of the sale of the Diamond and related equipment have been deposited with the registry of the Court. This adversary proceeding was initiated to (i) to determine the extent, validity, and priority of claims to proceeds of the Diamond, and (ii) to determine the ownership of related equipment (including the Bunkers & Lubes) and properly allocate proceeds from the sale thereof. According to Bittner, although the Bunkers & Lubes were located on property owned by DM1 (i.e. the Diamond), they were at all times the property of DMT.
Bittner has provided evidence of DMT's ownership of the Bunkers & Lubes. See Mot. for Summ. J. Exs. A and B. Bittner has also provided evidence that the Bunkers & Lubes were sold for $113,181.20. See Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. C. No other party has filed a response to Bittner's motion for summary judgment.
A separate judgment will be issued.
- No Cases Found