Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO: 07-3386, SECTION: J.
June 23, 2009
ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiff Vincent Mark Castillo's Motion to Vacate Judicial Sale (Rec. Doc. 91) and Intervenor Lea Annette Fink's Motion to Vacate Judicial Sale (Rec. Doc. 92). Also before the Court is Castillo and Fink's Objection (Rec. Doc. 89) to the Kenner Defendants' Motion for Authorization of Judicial Sale (Rec. Doc. 76). The Court has considered the record, the memoranda of counsel, and the applicable law, and finds that Castillo's and Fink's motions should be denied for the reasons asserted in the Kenner Defendants' Opposition (Rec. Doc. 94).
As explained in the Kenner Defendants' briefing, Castillo's and Fink's Motions to Vacate make demonstrably false assertions regarding whether and when Castillo was advised of the appraisal of the seized vehicle at issue in this case. Specifically, the Kenner Defendants have presented documentary evidence proving that Castillo received notice of the appraisal, as well as an invitation to appoint his own appraiser, by email on January 26, 2009 — more than a full month before the March 4, 2009 appraisal and almost three months before the April 9, 2009 appraisal. Furthermore, the Kenner Defendants note the return of service (Rec. Doc. 82) of a Notice to Appoint Appraiser that was served on Castillo before the April 9, 2009 appraisal. As such, Castillo's assertions that he had no notice of the appraisals are blatant misstatements of fact.
Likewise, the Kenner Defendants starkly refute Castillo's claim that he and Fink were not allowed to view the seized vehicle during the public viewing period of April 20-22, 2009, as advertised in the Times Picayune. The Kenner Defendants present the affidavit of Wanda Nichols, office manager for the towing company in whose possession the vehicle was held for viewing, which indicates that Castillo and Fink did not request access to the vehicle until 4:00 p.m. on April 23, 2009 — which was beyond the public viewing period and 51/2 hours after the sale had already occurred. Likewise, counsel for the Kenner Defendants avers that he was present at the auction, and Castillo and Fink never appeared and did not bid. Based on this unrefuted evidence, it is apparent that Castillo and Fink misled the Court when they alleged that they were not allowed to view the vehicle during the public viewing period. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Castillo's Motion to Vacate Judicial Sale (Rec. Doc. 91), Fink's Motion to Vacate Judicial Sale (Rec. Doc. 92), and Castillo and Fink's Objections (Rec. Doc. 89) are hereby DENIED AND OVERRULED.