It appears there’s been an update in the case where Judge Seitz imposed Rule 11 sanctions — the lawyers have filed a motion for reconsideration.
They basically argue that Judge Seitz made a mistake:
Plaintiffs respectfully clarify an important matter which they hope will demonstrate why this Court should reconsider its prior Order: NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LIMITED’s (“NCL”) conviction resulted from criminal law enforcement by the U.S. Coast Guard Investigative Service (“CGIS”), not the civil transportation safety investigation of the National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”). The Court’s Order (and the Sanctions Order, D.E. 229) appears founded upon the Plaintiffs’ knowledge of the NTSB’s safety investigation well before both the settlement of the Plaintiffs’ claims and NCL’s conviction. However, the NTSB’s investigation did not lead to NCL’s conviction;1 rather, it was the CGIS’ investigation and the enforcement of U.S. criminal law that resulted in NCL’s conviction.
They then argue that this fundamental mistake led to an erroneous ruling:
Plaintiffs submit that the above Clarification as to which investigation led to NCL’s criminal conviction and, further, the timing of the Plaintiffs learning of the CGIS’ investigation shows neither the Plaintiffs nor the Defendants intended for the releases to settle the criminal liability that resulted from the CGIS’ investigation.
13. Given this Clarification, the Court should reevaluate the Plaintiffs’ preliminary evidentiary allegations, which show: i) the Plaintiffs lacked knowledge of the CGIS criminal investigation when they settled their cases and signed the releases, and ii) there was an actionable misrepresentation by NCL in concealing the CGIS criminal investigation and affirmatively calling the explosion an accident. Based on this reevaluation, the Court should then determine whether to allow amendment or supplementation. This should yield the result of allowing amendment or supplementation. The undisclosed criminal activity was not capable of being released, as it was completely outside the parties’ intention to do so.
Meanwhile, the defense attorneys have submitted bills for $52k in fees and $2k in costs —— just dealing with the Omnibus Motion — which is being contested as excessive and unjustified.