Opinion

Maricultura Del Norte, S. De R.L. De C.V. v. Worldbusiness Capital, Inc.

Court
District Court, S.D. New York
Filed
Mar 2, 2020
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 27.1%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT qe”

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 4 ;

x vehe ae □

MARICULTURA DEL NORTE, S. DE R.L. DE 3/ > [20

C.V. and SERVAX BLEU, S. DER.L. DEC.V., or

Plaintiffs, .

-against- No. 14 Civ. 10143 (CM)

WORLDBUSINESS CAPITAL, INC.; UMAMI

SUSTAINABLE SEAFOOD, INC.; CRAIG A.

TASHJIAN; and AMERRA CAPITAL

MANAGEMENT, LLC,

Defendants.

ORDER REGARDING CUSTOMS FEE PORTION OF THE AMENDED JUDGMENT

McMahon, C.J.:

On February 14, 2020, this Court decided motion for a turnover order and a writ of

execution filed by creditor Servax Bleu, 8. de R.L. de C.V. (“Servax”) seeking the balance of the

Amended Judgment, as well as Rule 60 motions from both sides seeking to reopen and revise the

Amended Judgment. See Maricultura del Norte, S. de R.L. de C.V. v. Worldbusisness Capital,

Inc., No. 14 Civ.10143, 2020 WL 747207 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2020) (Dkt. No. 306; the “Rule 60

Order”).

Judgment debtor Umami Sustainable Seafood, Inc. (“Umami”) sought a reduction in the

judgment equal to: (i) the value of a settlement reached between creditor Servax Bleu, S. de R.L.

de C.V. (“Servax”) and Umami’s co-defendant, Worldbusiness Capital, Inc.; (ii) an interest

judgment entered in Umami’s favor (the “Mexican Interest Judgment”) in the related foreclosure

proceeding brought against Servax’s co-plaintiff, Maricultura del Norte, S. de R.L. de C.V.

(“Marnor”) in a Mexican court; and (iii) a $750,000 tax assessment owed by Mamor to the

Mexican Tax Authority (the “Customs Fee”), which Marnor has yet to pay, and which a Mexican

Administrative Court nullified on June 28, 2019, as well as $174,759.99 in associated

prejudgment interest. (Dkt. No. 277.) Servax sought to reopen and increase the Amended

Judgment by $1,638,833.32 to account for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs that Umami

obtained from the Mexican Court against Servax’s co-plaintiff after this Court entered the

Amended Judgment. (Dkt. No. 286.)

The Court denied Servax’s motion, granted Umami’s motion with respect to the

settlement, and denied Umami’s motion with respect to the Mexican Interest Judgment. (See

Rule 60 Order.) With respect to Servax’s writ motion, the Court found that Servax was entitled

to a portion of the judgment “with the exact amount to be determined.” (Jd. at 15.)

As for Umami’s motion to reduce the Amended Judgment by the amount of the Customs

Fee, while Umami claimed that plaintiffs no longer had any tax liability, and, in addition, that

Umami had paid any fees that the Mexican authorities might impose on Marnor’s fleet, the Court

did not find that Umami had met its burden to present “highly convincing” evidence in support

of its motion. Thai-Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co., Ltd. V. Gov. of Lao People’s Dem. Republ., 864

F.3d 172, 182 (2d Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted).

According to Umami, Marnor could no longer be taxed. (Dkt. No. 293, Padilla Decl. §

10.) According to Servax and Eduardo Diaz Gavito (an expert in trade and customs law), as of

September 13, 2019, Marnor might still be subject to a tax reassessment for four more months.

(Dkt. No. 289, Gavito Decl. § 24.) Beyond Umami’s word that there would be no further taxes

levied against Marnor, and Servax’s failure to present evidence of a reassessment, the Court no

means to determine whether Marnor might be held liable for the Customs Fee.

Therefore, the Rule 60 Order gave “the parties ten business days to provide [the Court]

with evidence either that the tax is being reimposed or that is has been permanently vacated and

cannot be reimposed under Mexican law.” (Rule 60 Order at 12.) Umami’s Rule 60 Motion with

respect to the Customs Fee was held in abeyance until that time.

On February 28, 2020, Servax stipulated that it “has no evidence or information

indicating that the Mexican tax authorities reinitiated the assessment of customs penalties against

Marnor,” and reduced its request for the balance of the Amended Judgment accordingly. (Dkt.

No. 307.)

Consistent with this Court’s Rule 60 Order, Servax is therefore entitled to the value of the

Amended Judgment minus the WBC Settlement and the Customs Fee, plus associated interest.

In light of the fact that Marnor never paid any fraction of the Customs Fee, Servax shall not be

entitled to any interest associated with the Customs Fee that accrued prior to its vacatur.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March fe 2020 Lt

Chief Judge

BY ECF TO ALL COUNSEL

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.