InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 23
Posts 1119
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 05/02/2014

Re: None

Tuesday, 11/21/2017 9:15:48 AM

Tuesday, November 21, 2017 9:15:48 AM

Post# of 62024
Looks like the documents I looked at Thursday were eye's attorneys proposed judgement. The judge has ruled and eyes lost thier case, but like I said before ...with Chris wanting to give autcus shares instaed of cash, it has to be a good sign. They will either have to give them a boatload of shares or get the share price up for auctus to cash out.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/19436584/Eyes_on_the_Go_NY,_INC_v_Auctus_Private_Equity_Fund,_LLC_et_al#

Monday, November 20, 2017
75 order Judgment Mon 2:48 PM
Judge Richard G. Stearns: ENDORSED ORDER entered. JUDGMENT in favor of Auctus Private Equity Fund, LCC(Caruso, Stephanie)
74 order Order Mon 2:15 PM
Judge Richard G. Stearns: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. re72 Statement of facts,,,,,,,71 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion,, filed by Chris Carey Advisors, LLC, Tall Oaks CT, LLC, Mary Weaver Carey, Off the Charts, LLC, Eyes on the Go NY, INC., Eyes on the Go, Inc., Amie Carey Sepaniak, Jamie S. Karczewski, Christopher Carey, Blazej Kesy,68 Proposed Document(s) submitted, filed by Auctus Private Equity Fund LLC. The court previously entered summary judgment in favor of Auctus on its claim for breach of contract after finding that Eyes had failed to timely repay Auctus on two convertible notes. All that remains is to determine the amount of the damages to be awarded. Eyes does not challenge Auctus's computation of the amount due under the notes as totaling $271,965.43 (under the notes, the default sum is to be calculated at 150% of the outstanding principle and interest (accruing at a rate of 22% per annum)). Eyes suggests that in lieu of a money judgment, the court should order the conversion of the outstanding amounts to Eyes shares. However, conversion is an option available solely at the election of Auctus. The notes also provide for the payment of any reasonable attorneys fees incurred in collecting on a default. Eyes contends that because the court ruled against Auctus on 11 of its 12 claims, Eyes should be considered the prevailing party on those claims. However, under Nevada law (the choice of law under the notes), "[a] party prevails 'if it succeeds on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit it sought in bringing suit.'" LVMPD v. Blackjack Bonding , 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 10, 343 P.3d 608, 615 (2015) (emphasis original). Auctus intended to recover on the loans it made to Eyes and in this regard Auctus unquestionably succeeded. However, the court will discount by one quarter the amount of the fee award requested for the portion of work performed by Reed & Giordano because counsel unaccountably sought entry of summary judgment for Auctus on a Chapter 93A claim that had been previously dismissed by the court. The court finds other aspects of Auctuss fee request (having considered the nature of the work, the hours spent, and the hourly rate) to be adequately documented and reasonable. The court will therefore award Auctus attorneys fees in the amount of $41,591.88. (RGS, int2)