Pacific and Arctic Railway and Navigation Company v. M/V PAC STAR, IMO 9116292 et al
Filing
9
JDR ORDER granting Motion 6 for Relief from the Minute Orders of April 25 and May 22, 2012, warning of the intent to dismiss for failure to prosecute for lack of service of process. Plaintiff to file a detailed Status Report on or before August 31, 2012 regarding the steps taken to properly service defendants. (JAM, Chambers Staff)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
PACIFIC AND ARCTIC RAILWAY &
NAVIGATION, CO.,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 3:12-cv-00041-TMB-JDR
vs.
M/V PAC STAR, IMO 9116292, its
engines, tackle, gear, boats, apparel,
furniture, and equipment In Rem,
DALIAN TIGER SHIPPING LTD., In
Personam, and PAC STAR
SHIPPING HK CO. LTD., In
Personam,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM MINUTE ORDER
Docket 6
Defendants.
The Plaintiff filed a Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(h) and 28
U.S.C. § 1333. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Vessel M/V PAC STAR is owned by
Pac Star Shipping Co., a Chinese company and that the PAC STAR is managed by
Dalian Tiger Shipping, Ltd., also a Chinese company.1 At the time of the filing of the
1
Complaint, Docket 1, p. 1-2.
Complaint, Plaintiff asserted that it believed the Vessel would be in the jurisdiction
of this Court during the pendency of this action.2
At Dockets 4 and 5 this Court issued warnings regarding Plaintiff’s
failure to provide proof of service in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) with
respect to all Defendants. In response, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion at Docket 6
alleging that it is now known that the Defendants are not subject to Rule 4(m), but
rather are foreign entitles subject to Rule 4(f). Rule 4(f) provides in part that service
upon a foreign entity may be made:
(1) by any internationally agreed means of service that is
reasonably calculated to give notice, such as those
authorized by the Hague Convention on the Service
Abroad Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents . . .
The 120 day time limit outlined in Rule 4(m) explicitly does not apply to service under
Rule 4(f).
Plaintiff asserts that the Vessel has not been within the jurisdiction of
this Court since the time of the filing of the Complaint and thus the Plaintiff has been
unable to arrest the Vessel. Plaintiff also asserts, through counsel, that it has
determined that it must begin effecting service pursuant to the Hague Convention.3
After due consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief, the Court
HEREBY GRANTS the Motion. However, Plaintiff shall not delay in effectuating
2
Id. at 1.
3
Docket 7.
12-cv-041-TMB-JDR @6 Order Re Motion for Relief.wpd
2
service and the Court will not grant unlimited time to serve the Defendants.
Accordingly, Plaintiff shall file a detailed Status Report on or before August 31, 2012
regarding the steps taken to properly serve the Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this
25th
day of June, 2012, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ John D. Roberts
JOHN D. ROBERTS
United States Magistrate Judge
12-cv-041-TMB-JDR @6 Order Re Motion for Relief.wpd
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?