Pan Ocean Co. Ltd. v. Clearlake Shipping Pte Ltd.

Filing 9

ORDER DENYING 3 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ATTACHMENT AND GARNISHMENT by Judge William Alsup. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/14/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
No. C 18-03513 WHA
PAN OCEAN CO. LTD.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR WRIT OF ATTACHMENT
AND GARNISHMENT

v.

13

CLEARLAKE SHIPPING PTE LTD.,

14

Defendant.

15

/

16
17

On June 13, plaintiff Pan Ocean Co. Ltd. filed a verified complaint against defendant

18

Clearlake Shipping Pte Ltd. The complaint asserted claims for breach of contract, for the

19

recovery of costs incurred in an ongoing proceeding in the Singaporean High Court, and for

20

relief under Rule B of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims of

21

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That same day, plaintiff moved ex parte for an order

22

authorizing a writ of attachment and garnishment against garnishee Chevron’s property (Dkt.

23

Nos. 1–3).

24

On June 14, the action was reassigned to the undersigned judge. Upon review of

25

plaintiff’s papers that same morning, the Court inquired with the Clerk’s office as to whether

26

plaintiff’s counsel was in the courthouse and available for an ex parte hearing, as is the Court’s

27

usual practice for resolving questions concerning such ex parte requests. The Clerk reported

28

that counsel was not present. The failure of counsel to standby for such a hearing meant that the
usual opportunity to address the Court’s concerns was lost.

1

Plaintiff’s ex parte motion is DENIED. Several problems exist. First, the record reveals

2

that plaintiff has already commenced proceedings against defendant in the High Court of

3

Singapore. But there is no indication as to whether plaintiff sought to have defendant post

4

security in that court. For all the papers indicate, plaintiff applied for such relief and it was

5

denied for good reason. The High Court of Singapore is in the best position to determine

6

whether sufficient merit exists for the posting of security.

7

Second, the Court desires argument from defendant and the garnishee, Chevron, before

proceedings in maritime actions are often abused and only half-truths are told. Accordingly,

10

fairness requires that the Court further understand the case, and the defendant and garnishee’s

11
For the Northern District of California

ruling on plaintiff’s motion. In the undersigned judge’s 19 years of experience, ex parte

9

United States District Court

8

positions, before issuing a writ. The papers fail to explain why it would be imprudent to hear

12

both sides before ruling against a party.

13

Third, the application does not justify authorizing anyone other than the United States

14

Marshal’s Service to attach any property. Moreover, any attached property would go into the

15

Court’s registry, not into plaintiff’s pocket.

16

This denial is without prejudice to plaintiff bringing a new motion for a writ of

17

attachment and garnishment. Any new motion, however, should include specific responses to

18

the above-explained concerns. The undersigned judge also requests that the High Court of

19

Singapore advise, via counsel, whether the merits of plaintiff’s claims warrant the relief sought.

20

For all the record shows, defendant will be good for any judgment obtained against it in

21

Singapore. If not, the Court is confident that sufficient garnishees will arise from time to time

22

in the Northern District of California to satisfy any future judgment obtained, at least to the

23

same extent Chevron would be able to.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27

Dated: June 14, 2018.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2