United States of America v. The M/Y Amadea
United States of America v. The M/Y Amadea, A Motor Yacht Bearing International Maritime Organization No. 1012531
- Ho
- 1:23-cv-09304
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In United States v. M/Y Amadea, Judge Ho denied reconsideration of the Government’s request for a bond pending appeal.
The Government, Eduard Khudainatov, and Millemarin Investments Ltd.; the court’s denial left its earlier refusal to impose a bond pending appeal in place.
What happened
United States of America v. The M/Y Amadea, A Motor Yacht Bearing International Maritime Organization No. 1012531 concerns the Government’s request to require Eduard Khudainatov and Millemarin Investments Ltd. to post a bond while an appeal was pending. The court had previously declined to impose the bond.
The Government asked the court to reconsider that earlier decision. It argued that the court had made a clear legal error by not giving controlling weight to factors used under Local Civil Rule 54.2, and that refusing the bond would cause serious unfairness.
Judge Dale E. Ho denied the Government’s motion for reconsideration. He said the court had considered the relevant factors, had discretion under Rule 54.2, and had not made a clear error or caused the kind of obvious injustice that would justify reconsideration.
The detailed version
- United States of America v. The M/Y Amadea · No. 1:23-cv-09304
- Ho
- Nov. 20, 2025
Background
The court previously denied the Government’s request to require claimants Eduard Khudainatov and Millemarin Investments Ltd. to post a bond for costs while an appeal was pending. The Government then filed a motion asking the court to reconsider that decision.
Legal standard
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally available only when the court overlooked evidence or binding legal authority, made a clear error, or needs to prevent obvious and serious unfairness. Reconsideration is not a way to reargue issues already decided or obtain another hearing simply because a party disagrees with the court’s reasoning.
Clear-error argument
The Government argued that the court made a legal error by denying a cost bond even though, in the Government’s view, the relevant factors strongly favored one. Those factors came from Local Civil Rule 54.2, which allows a court to order a party to provide a bond or additional security for costs.
The court rejected that argument. It said Rule 54.2 gives courts broad discretion and does not require every generally relevant factor to be considered in every case or given decisive weight. The court also said the Government was factually incorrect in claiming that the earlier decision failed to consider the relevant factors. The earlier decision addressed the claimants’ ability to pay, the merits of the claim, and their lack of compliance with past court orders. It nevertheless declined to impose a multimillion-dollar bond for several reasons, including the court’s conclusion that a bond would not advance the rule’s primary purpose and its concern that a bond might prevent appellate review of the decision striking the claim.
Manifest-injustice argument and ruling
The Government also argued that reconsideration was necessary to prevent manifest injustice. The court concluded that its earlier decision was not a direct, obvious, or plainly wrong error. The Government’s disagreement with the court’s reasoning did not establish manifest injustice, and the Government identified no binding authority requiring the court to impose a bond.
Judge Dale E. Ho therefore DENIED the Government’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 501. The clerk was directed to terminate that motion.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.