Montemp Maritime Ltd v. Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd. et al

Filing 18

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATIONS FOR WRIT OF GARNISHMENT AND FOR AN ORDER FOR APPOINTMENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS OR MARITIME ATTACHMENT AND GARNISHMENT #2 , #3 , #4 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II . (lc). Modified on 9/6/2016 (lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

MONTEMP MARITIME LTD.,
Plaintiff,

12

v.

13
14

Case № 2:16-cv-06585-ODW (AGR)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

HANJIN SHIPPING CO. LTD.,
Defendant.

15

EX PARTE APPLICATIONS FOR
WRIT OF GARNISHMENT AND

16

FOR AN ORDER FOR

17

APPOINTMENT FOR SERVICE OF

18

PROCESS OR MARITIME

19

ATTACHMENT AND

20

GARNISHMENT [2, 3, 4]

21
22

I.

INTRODUCTION

23

On August 31, 2016, Plaintiff Montempt Maritime Limited filed ex parte

24

applications for a writ of garnishment, for an order for appointment for service of

25

process or maritime attachment, and for garnishment. For the reasons discussed

26

below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Applications. (ECF Nos. 2, 3 4.) 1

27
28

1

After carefully considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion, the Court
deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15.

1

II.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2

Plaintiff Montemp Maritime Ltd. (“Montemp” or “Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint

3

in this admiralty action on August 31, 2016, alleging breach of contract and

4

application for writs of maritime garnishment pursuant to Supplemental Admiralty

5

Rule B against Defendant Hanjin Shipping Co, Ltd. (“Hanjin” or “Defendant”).

6

(Compl. ¶¶ 13, 17.) Plaintiff contends that it has suffered damages of $1,688,345.70

7

as a result of Hanjin’s failure to make payments for a time charter of a Vessel. On the

8

same day, Plaintiff filed an ex parte Application for Writ of Garnishment. Plaintiff

9

also seeks Appointment for Service of Process of Maritime Attachment and

10

Garnishment, pursuant to Supplemental Maritime Admiralty Rule B. To date, the

11

Court has not received any opposition.

12
13

III.
A.

LEGAL STANDARD

SUPPLEMENTAL ADMIRALTY RULE B

14

Rule B of the Supplemental Rules of Admiralty and Maritime Claims (“Rule

15

B”) governs the procedure by which a party may attach another party’s assets in

16

maritime cases. Rule B provides as follows:

17
18
19
20
21

(a) If a defendant is not found within the district when a verified
complaint praying for attachment and the affidavit required by Rule
B(1)(b) are filed, a verified complaint may contain a prayer for
process to attach the defendant’s tangible or intangible personal
property – up to the amount sued for – in the hands of garnishees
named in the process.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(b) The plaintiff or the plaintiff’s attorney must sign and file with the
complaint an affidavit stating that, to the affiant’s knowledge, or on
information and belief, the defendant cannot be found within the
district. The court must review the complaint and affidavit and, if the
conditions of this Rule B appear to exist, enter an order so stating and
authorizing process of garnishment. The clerk may issue supplemental
process enforcing the court’s order upon application without further
court order.

2

(c) If the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s attorney certifies that exigent
circumstances make court review impracticable, the clerk must issue
the summons and process of attachment and garnishment.

1
2
3
4

B.

EX PARTE WRIT OF ATTACHMENT

5

Rule 64 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part, that

6

“all remedies providing for seizure of person or property for the purpose of securing

7

satisfaction of the judgment ultimately to be entered in the action are available under

8

the circumstances and in the manner provided by the law of the state in which the

9

district court is held . . . .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 64. Thus, Rule 64 permits state seizure

10

provisions to be used in federal courts. See Reebok Int’l v. Marnatech Enters., 970

11

F.2d 552, 558 (9th Cir. 1992). Pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure, the

12

party seeking the attachment has the burden of proving:

13
14

(1) The claim upon which the attachment is based is one upon which an
attachment may be issued.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

(2) The plaintiff has established the probable validity of the claim upon
which the attachment is based.
(3) The attachment is not sought for a purpose other than the recovery
upon the claim upon which the attachment is based.
(4) The affidavit accompanying the application shows that the property
sought to be attached, or the portion thereof to be specified in the writ,
is not exempt from attachment.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(5) The plaintiff will suffer great or irreparable injury (within the meaning
of Section 485.010) if issuance of the order is delayed until the matter
can be heard on notice.
(6) The amount to be secured by the attachment is greater than zero.
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 485.220(a).

3

1

IV.

DISCUSSION

2

Plaintiff appears to have satisfied the requirements of Rule B by filing a verified

3

Complaint containing a prayer for attachment and garnishment, along with an affidavit

4

declaring that the Defendant cannot be found within the district.

5

However, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that it is entitled to the

6

extraordinary relief of an ex parte order allowing maritime attachment and

7

garnishment. Relief in the form of an ex parte writ of attachment requires a showing

8

that Plaintiff will suffer great or irreparable injury if issuance of the order is delayed

9

until the matter can be heard on notice. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 485.220(a). Here,

10

even assuming Plaintiff has satisfied its burden of demonstrating the other elements

11

required for an ex parte writ of attachment, the Court finds that Plaintiff has provided

12

no information supporting a likelihood of great or irreparable injury if issuance of an

13

order is delayed until a noticed hearing on Plaintiff’s Application. See id. The Court

14

finds nothing in the Plaintiff’s Applications that indicates Hanjin is likely to hide or

15

diminish its own assets prior to a noticed hearing.

16

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that ex parte relief is warranted in this action.

17

The Court acknowledges that the relief sought pursuant to Rule B is available later in

18

the litigation timeline; thus, the Court will consider the prayer for attachment and

19

garnishment in the future as appropriate, not on the expedited timeline for which

20

Plaintiff has provided no support.

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

4

1

V.

CONCLUSION

2

For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES Defendant’s ex parte

3

Applications for Writ of Garnishment and for an Order for Appointment for Service of

4

Process of Maritime Attachment and Garnishment. (ECF Nos. 2, 3, 4.)

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

September 6, 2016

9
10
11
12

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5