In re Sanctuary Belize Litigation, No. 1:2018cv03309 - Document 1386 (D. Md. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte on 12/14/2022. (ybs, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
In re Sanctuary Belize Litigation Doc. 1386 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Civil No.: PJM 18-3309 In re SANCTUARY BELIZE LITIGATION MEMORANDUM OPINION The Motion for Order Approving and Authorizing Payment of Original Receiver's and Professional's Fees and Costs From April 1,2021 Through October 26,2021 and for Related Relief (EOF No. 1326) filed by the original receiver, Robb Evans & Associates LLC ("Robb Evans"), came before this Court in December 2021. The Court granted this Motion insofar as approving the Receiver's fees. The Court now considers the approval ofthe Receiver's actions and the release of the Receiver and/or its agents from liability. Robb Evans moves for the Court to order the following: 1. All actions and activities taken by or on behalf of Robb Evans and all payments made by Robb Evans in connection with the administration of the receivership estate are approved and confirmed. 2. Robb Evans, and its deputies, agents, employees, members, officers, independent contractors, attorneys, accountants and representatives shall have no liability to any person or entity for any action taken or not taken in connection with carrying out Robb Evans's administration ofthe receivership estate, and the exercise of any powers, duties and responsibilities in connection therewith. 3. Robb Evans, and its deputies, agents, employees, members, officers, independent contractors, attorneys, accountants and representatives are released from all claims and liabilities arising out of and/or pertaining to the receivership while Robb Evans was Receiver, and all of the foregoing persons and entities except for Barnes & Thomburg are relieved of all duties and responsibilities pertaining to the receivership. ECFNo. 1326. Defendants oppose this relief. They claim that the grant of such sweeping prospective relieffrom future claims regarding actions or activities taken by Robb Evans is unauthorized, premature, and contrary to law. ECF No. 1327. Defendants make three distinct arguments as to the inappropriate nature ofthis relief. They first cite to FTC v. Vemma Nutrition Co. where.the Receiver,coincidentally also Robb Evans, was denied the broad release ofliability it requested. WL 7786476,at *1-2(D. Ariz. Sept. 8,2016). The court in Vemma concluded that it "has no authority to grant sweeping prospective relief from claims not yet brought and from parties unknown-that is the essence of an advisory ruling, which Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
