Kite Shipping LLC v. San Juan Navigation Corporation

Filing 69

AMENDED ORDER Adopting Magistrate Judge's 55 Order Vacating Attachment; and Denying 33 International Materials Inc.'s Motion for Leave to Intervene. The Court Stays the vacation of the attachment. Plaintiffs may engage in the discovery authorized by this Court's 59 Order filed 7/11/2012. Such discovery and consideration of the vacation of the stay shall be in accordance with Magistrate Judge Gallo's 67 Order filed 8/9/2012. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 9/13/2012.(rlu)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KITE SHIPPING LLC,

Case No. 11cv02694 BTM (WVG)
Plaintiff,

12

AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER
VACATING ATTACHMENT AND
DENYING INTERNATIONAL
MATERIALS INC.’S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO INTERVENE

v.
13
14
15

SAN JUAN NAVIGATION
CORPORATION AND MANDARIN
SHIPPING PTE LTD.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

CARDINAL SHIPPING LLC,
Intervening Plaintiff,
v.
SAN JUAN NAVIGATION
CORPORATION AND MANDARIN
SHIPPING PTE LTD.,
Defendants.
INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS INC.,
Intervenor.

24
25

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Objections and Application for Review of the

26

Magistrate Judge’s Order Vacating Attachment (Doc. 57). For the reasons set forth herein,

27

the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Gallo’s order, but stays the order pending further

28

proceedings before this Court. Also pending before the Court is International Materials Inc.’s
1

11cv02694 BTM (WVG)

1

Motion for Leave to Intervene (Doc. 33). The Court denies this motion.

2
3

BACKGROUND

4
5

The following overview of the facts in this case proceeds in two parts. The first part

6

reviews the facts leading up to Plaintiffs’ request for a writ of attachment. The second part

7

reviews events occurring after the commencement of this lawsuit, up through the entry of

8

Magistrate Judge Gallo’s March 26, 2012 order vacating the attachment.

9
10

a.

Events leading up to the present action

11
12

Plaintiff Kite Shipping LLC (“Kite Shipping”) is the owner of the M/V Kite, a vessel (the

13

“Kite”). Plaintiff chartered the Kite to Defendant San Juan Navigation Corporation (“SJN”),

14

pursuant to a 2006 time charter party agreement. Plaintiff alleges that in 2010, during the

15

term of its 2006 agreement, SJN caused damage to the Vessel’s engines, resulting in

16

financial losses to Plaintiff. Plaintiff has commenced arbitration in London, claiming roughly

17

$1.25 million in damages to the engine, wrongfully withheld hire payments, estimated interest

18

on the principal claim, and estimated attorneys’ fees. The action before this Court is an

19

ancillary proceeding brought to attach and garnish assets of SJN in aid of the London

20

arbitration.

21

In March of 2011, SJN chartered the M/V Mandarin Fortune (the “Mandarin Fortune”),

22

a vessel owned by Mandarin Fortune Shipping PTE (“MFS”) (now a defendant in this action).

23

Subsequently, SJN sub-chartered the Mandarin Fortune to International Materials Inc. (“IMI”)

24

(now a putative intervenor in this action). The Mandarin Fortune was scheduled to arrive at

25

the Port of San Diego on November 19, 2011 (during the period of IMI’s subcharter of that

26

vessel from SJN). On November 17, 2011, Plaintiff Kite Shipping commenced the present

27

action, seeking to attach all of SJN’s property located on the Mandarin Fortune (or payment

28

therefore) pursuant to Rule B of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims
2

11cv02694 BTM (WVG)

1

and Asset Forfeiture Actions (“Rule B”). SJN’s property on the Kite consisted mainly of

2

bunker fuel (“bunkers”).

3
4

b.

Overview of present litigation

5
6

On November 17, 2011, Magistrate Judge Gallo ordered the Clerk to issue process

7

directing the United States Marshal to attach all bunkers on board the Mandarin Fortune

8

belonging to SJN and garnish all other tangible and intangible property on board under the

9

custody or control of SJN, its sub-charterers, or its agents (Doc. 5).

10

On November 18, 2011, Cardinal Shipping Limited (“Cardinal”) moved for leave to

11

intervene as a matter of right (Docs. 7 and 8).

12

$172,787.58 in unpaid hire pursuant to a charter party entered between Cardinal and SJN

13

in 2009, that the dispute between Cardinal and SJN had been submitted to arbitration in

14

London, and that the disposition of this matter absent Cardinal would impair Cardinal’s ability

15

to satisfy its claim against SJN. Magistrate Judge Gallo entered orders that day permitting

16

Cardinal to intervene (Doc. 10) and authorizing issuance of process of maritime attachment

17

and garnishment for the benefit of Cardinal (Doc. 12). Cardinal is now a plaintiff in this

18

action.

Cardinal claimed that SJN owed it

19

The Mandarine Fortune did not arrive at the Port of San Diego on November 19, 2011,

20

as scheduled. Rather, it loitered off the California Coast from November 18, 2011, until the

21

morning of November 21, 2011, at which time it arrived at port and the United States Marshal

22

executed service. See Doc. 15 (certificate of service dated 21 November 2011); Doc. 21,

23

Ex. 2 (emails dated 18-20 November 2011). On that same day, Plaintiffs and MFS entered

24

into an agreement pursuant to which MFS placed $300,000 into an escrow account to secure

25

the release of the bunkers on board the Mandarin Fortune. See Pl. Br. (Doc. 57) at 2, Def.

26

Br. (Doc. 58) at 1 n.1.

27

On December 9, 2011, MFS moved for an order to vacate the attachment (Doc. 17),

28

arguing that at the time of service of the writ of attachment, SJN was neither the owner nor
3

11cv02694 BTM (WVG)

1

possessor of the attached bunkers. With respect to ownership, MFS stated that SJN ordered

2

the bunkers on October 10, 2011, for an agreed purchase price of $609,982.58. On

3

November 11, 2011, SJN notified MFS by letter that it was going out of business and was

4

ceasing operations immediately. See Doc. 17-3, Ex. 3 (Letter dated 11 November 2011).

5

The letter attempted to arrange a novation pursuant to which IMI, the current “voyage

6

charterer” of the Mandarin Fortune (pursuant to a sub-charter agreement with SJN), could

7

substitute in for SJN as the direct charterer of the vessel. The letter also assigned to MFS

8

all interests in the bunkers on board the vessel, as well as the balance owed to SJN by IMI.

9

(Id.) On November 17, 2011, MFS paid the entire invoice amount of $609,982.58 on the

10

bunkers. See Doc. 17-3, Ex. 4 (Invoice dated 17 November 2011). Thus, according to MFS,

11

by November 21, 2011, MFS owned all the bunkers onboard the Mandarin Fortune. With

12

respect to possession of the bunkers, MFS stated that it terminated its time charter with SJN

13

on November 20, 2011, and therefore SJN neither owned nor possessed the bunkers at the

14

time of service. See Doc. 17-3, Ex. 3 (Email dated 20 November 2011).

15

Plaintiffs Kite Shipping and Cardinal (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed their opposition to

16

the motion to vacate (Doc. 20) on January 6, 2012. In addition to arguing against the

17

evidence showing that MFS--not SJN--owned the bunkers, Plaintiffs contended that MFS and

18

SJN are alter egos. Plaintiffs supported their alter ego theory with allegations that: (a) MFS

19

payed for the bunkers on SJN’s behalf; (b) there is no formal agreement memorializing the

20

transfer of possession of the bunkers from SJN to MFS; and (c) MFS ordered the Mandarin

21

Fortune to loiter off the California coast between November 18 and November 20, 2011,

22

presumably because SJN had warned MFS of the order of attachment and MFS wanted to

23

terminate the charter party with SJN before bringing the Mandarin Fortune into the Port of

24

San Diego. (Doc. 20 at 9-10.) Plaintiffs also sought broad discovery on their alter ego

25

theory.1

26
1

27
28

Specifically, Plaintiffs requested: “(i) correspondence exchanged between MFS and
SJN, from the beginning of the time charter until the time of the purported termination of
same; (ii) any and all agreements entered into between MFS and SJN from January 1, 2010
to present; (iii) correspondence exchanged between SJN and the voyage charterer of the
M/V MANDARIN FORTUNE, International Materials Inc., from the beginning of the time
4

11cv02694 BTM (WVG)

1

On January 10, 2012, before MFS filed its reply, Plaintiffs filed their Amended Verified

2

Complaint (Doc. 25), in which they repeated their allegation that “at all material times, there

3

existed such unity of ownership and interest between Defendant SJN and Defendant MFS,

4

that no separation exists between them . . . .” (Doc. 25 at ¶ 37.) In addition to the factual

5

allegations contained in their opposition to the motion to vacate, Plaintiff’s alleged in the

6

Amended Verified Complaint that SJN directed IMI (the sub-charterer) to pay to MFS all hire

7

payments owed to SJN for the sub-charter of the Mandarin Fortune (totaling $77,630.97).

8

(Id. at ¶ 40.)

9

In its reply brief (Doc. 30), filed January 13, 2012, MFS endeavored to shed light on

10

Plaintiffs’ factual allegations underlying its alter ego theory. MFS first claimed that it paid the

11

entire invoice on the bunkers ordered by SJN because: (a) pursuant to the terms and

12

conditions of the sale of the bunkers, any bunkers ordered by a charterer are deemed

13

ordered on behalf of the owner (MFS); and (b) MFS was listed (along with SJN) as a “Buyer”

14

on the confirmation of sale. Thus, MFS paid the invoice to avoid incurring liability for

15

nonpayment; not, as Plaintiffs claim, on behalf of SJN. Second, MFS claimed that under

16

English law (which governs the contractual relationship between MFS and SJN), the

17

November 11, 2011 letter from SJN to MFS sufficed to effectuate the transfer of the bunkers

18

to MFS; no formal agreement or novation was otherwise required. Third, MFS attempted to

19

debunk the theory that the Mandarin Fortune delayed entry into the Port of San Diego to

20

avoid the attachment, stating that it entered port with the knowledge that the bunkers would

21

be attached, and that in fact it had already entered negotiations with Plaintiffs’ counsel

22

regarding the $300,000 security payment. Lastly, MFS explained that the hire payments

23

owed by IMI (as sub-charterer) to SJN (as charterer) now rightfully belong to MFS, since the

24

charter party between SJN and MFS grants MFS (as “owners”) a lien on any amounts owed

25

by a sub-charterer to SJN for use of the Mandarin Fortune.

26
27
28

charter until the time of the purported termination of same; (iv) correspondence exchanged
between MFS and SJN, and the bunker supplier, Trans-Tec, in connection with the purchase
of the bunkers at issue; and (v) Vessel records indicating the amount of bunkers onboard
during the relevant time period, and the amount of bunkers consumed.” (Doc. 20 at 10-11.)
5

11cv02694 BTM (WVG)

1

Magistrate Judge Gallo held a hearing on the motion to vacate on January 25, 2012,

2

at which Plaintiffs, for the first time, presented certain documents allegedly showing a

3

connection between MFS, SJN, and MFS’s parent company, Dasin Holdings Pte. Ltd.

4

(“Dasin”). The documents introduced by Plaintiffs show that MFS, Dasin, and an entity called

5

San Juan Navigation (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. (“SJN (Singapore)”) shared a registered corporate

6

address and certain agents and officers. Magistrate Judge Gallo permitted MFS to respond

7

in writing. On February 21, 2012, MFS filed a supplemental response (Doc. 48) in which it

8

stated that SJN (Singapore) is an entirely different entity from SJN, and that it was a former

9

joint venture between SJN and Dasin. MFS reiterated that SJN is registered in the Republic

10

of the Marshall Islands, with a principal place of business in Bainbridge Island, Washington,

11

United States. MFS also pointed out that SJN shares a Washington business address with

12

an entity called San Juan Navigation LLC (“SJNL”), and that none of the members of SJNL

13

listed on SJNL’s certified annual report (introduced as an exhibit by MFS) are officers,

14

directors, or shareholders of MFS or Dasin.

15

On March 26, 2012, Magistrate Judge Gallo entered an order vacating the attachment

16

(Doc. 55). In that order, Magistrate Judge Gallo found that MFS owned the bunkers at the

17

time of service of the writ of attachment (November 21, 2011), since SJN had transferred its

18

ownership interest in the bunkers to MFS in the November 11, 2011 letter, and MFS paid the

19

balance on the invoice for the bunkers on November 17, 2011. (Doc. 55 at 6.) The order

20

also found, “[u]pon reviewing all documents, [that] it is clear to the Court that [SJN] is a

21

separate and distinct entity from San Juan (Singapore) and Mandarin Fortune.” (Id. at 10.)

22

Of particular probative value to the Magistrate Judge were the passage from SJN’s website

23

stating that “[o]ur Singapore office is a joint venture between noted Chinese shipowner DaSin

24

and San Juan Navigation” (id.), and a November 16, 2011 email from Dasin to SJN regarding

25

the payment of the outstanding balance on the bunkers, in which a representative from Dasin

26

wrote:

27
28

Owners are arranging payment of the attached invoice on a without prejudice
basis but hereby call upon SJN to immediately reimburse the sum remitted.
Unless and until SJN do[es] so, the bunkers will of course be Owners’ property.
All Owners’ rights remain expressly reserved.
6

11cv02694 BTM (WVG)

1

(Id. at 11 (citing Doc. 30-1, Ex. G at 4 (email dated 16 November 2011)).) Magistrate Judge

2

Gallo noted that “[t]hese are not the words of a company paying the debt of its subsidiary or

3

alter ego.” (Id.) Magistrate Judge Gallo denied Plaintiffs’ request for limited discovery

4

regarding their alter ego theory on the grounds that “the documentation before the Court is

5

more that adequate to show ownership[, the] discovery requests [are] overbroad and

6

unnecessary[,] . . . [and] all the evidence before the Court indicates that [Plaintiffs are] not

7

likely to find anything to support [their] alter ego theory.” (Id. at 4-5.) Magistrate Judge Gallo

8

stayed the execution of its order pending this Court’s resolution of the present objection.

9
10

DISCUSSION

11
12

In their present objection (Doc. 57), Plaintiffs request this Court to reverse the order

13

vacating attachment, or, in the alternative, to stay execution of that order and to permit

14

Plaintiffs to conduct limited discovery. In the event this Court affirms Magistrate Judge

15

Gallo’s order, Plaintiffs request a further stay of the vacatur order pending appeal to the Ninth

16

Circuit. For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the recommendation of the

17

magistrate judge that the order be vacated, grants Plaintiffs’ request for limited discovery,

18

and grants Plaintiffs’ request for a stay of the vacatur order pending further proceedings in

19

this Court.

20
21

The Court addresses IMI’s motion for leave to intervene (Doc. 33) in the final subpart
of this discussion.

22
23

a.

Standard of review

24
25

Ordinarily, an order vacating a maritime attachment is reviewed for abuse of

26

discretion, although legal conclusions underpinning the order are reviewed de novo. See

27

Equatorial Marine Fuel Management Services Pte. Ltd. v. MISC Berhad, 591 F.3d 1208,

28

1210 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Williamson v. Recovery Ltd. P’ship, 542 F.3d 43, 48 (2d Cir.
7

11cv02694 BTM (WVG)

1

2008)). However, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that MFS’s original motion to vacate the

2

attachment is a dispositive motion within the meaning of Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of

3

Civil Procedure, since the effect of an order to vacate the attachment is to deprive the Court

4

of jurisdiction. See United States v. Rivera-Guerrero, 377 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 2004)

5

(“[W]e do not simply look to the list of excepted pretrial matters in order to determine the

6

magistrate judge’s authority. Instead, we must look to the effect of the motion, in order to

7

determine whether it is properly characterized as ‘dispositive or non-dispositive of a claim or

8

defense of a party.’”).

9

Accordingly, the Court treats Magistrate Judge Gallo’s order as a report and

10

recommendation, and reviews it de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.

11

72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s

12

disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or

13

modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the

14

magistrate judge with instructions.”)

15
16

b.

Merits of decision to vacate attachment

17
18

In order to secure an attachment of a maritime defendant’s property, the plaintiff must

19

establish each of the following: (1) the plaintiff has a valid prima facie claim against the

20

defendant; (2) the defendant cannot be found within the district; (3) the defendant’s property

21

may be found within the district; and (4) there is no statutory or maritime law bar to the

22

attachment. See Equatorial Mar. Fuel Mgmt. Servs. PTE v. MISC Berhad, 591 F.3d 1208,

23

1210 (9th Cir. 2010); Fed. R. Civ. P., Supp. R. B.

24

After receiving notice of the attachment, the defendant may contest it under Rule

25

E(4)(f) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims, and may do so by

26

arguing that the plaintiff failed to meet one of the four conditions for attachment. Equatorial,

27

591 F.3d at 1210. In a Rule E(4)(f) challenge, the plaintiff carries the burden of justifying the

28

continued attachment. Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P., Supp. R. E(4)(f). The plaintiff need not
8

11cv02694 BTM (WVG)

1

prove its case at a Rule E(4)(f) hearing; rather, the plaintiff only needs to show “probable

2

cause” for the issuance of the warrant or writ (i.e. that the plaintiff is “reasonably likely to

3

prevail” on the merits of the contested issue). See OS Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Global Mar.

4

Trust(S) Private Ltd., 11cv377, 2011 WL 1750449, at *5 (D. Or. May 6, 2011) (noting, in light

5

of absence of binding Ninth Circuit authority, that “[n]umerous unpublished district court

6

decisions support [the probable cause] standard”).

7

The dispute in this case revolves around the third prong; specifically, whether the

8

attached property (the bunkers) belonged to the defendant (SJN) at the time of service of the

9

writ of attachment on November 21, 2011. Plaintiffs have not challenged Magistrate Judge

10

Gallo’s conclusion that MFS actually owned and possessed the bunkers on November 21.

11

Rather, they maintain that “SJN, MFS, and non-parties Dasin Shipping Pte. Ltd. and Dasin

12

Holdings Pte. Ltd. are alter egos, dominated and controlled by the Dasin Holdings Group.”

13

(Doc. 57 at 6.)

14

With respect to the issue of corporate identity, “[f]ederal courts sitting in admiralty

15

generally apply federal common law[,]” and thus “piercing of the corporate veil [is

16

permissible] where a corporation uses it alter ego to perpetrate fraud or where it so

17

dominates and disregards its alter ego’s corporate form that the alter ego was actually

18

carrying on the controlling corporation’s business instead of its own.” Chan v. Soc’y

19

Expeditions, Inc., 123 F.3d 1287, 1294 (9th Cir. 1997).

20

In their objection, Plaintiffs submit to the Court the same set of documents produced

21

before the magistrate judge showing a unity of officers/directors and a common corporate

22

address for MFS, Dasin, and SJN (Singapore). However, Plaintiffs’ attempt to conflate SJN

23

with SJN (Singapore) is undermined by the passage from SJN’s website--quoted in Plaintiffs’

24

own brief (Doc. 57 at 8)--stating that SJN (Singapore) “is a joint venture between noted

25

Chinese shipowner Dasin and San Juan Navigation.” Moreover, MFS’s statement that SJN

26

(Singapore) was originally a joint venture between SJN and Dasin, and is now wholly owned

27

by Dasin, finds support in the documentary record.

28

Singapore Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (“ACRA”) Report
9

For example, MFS submitted a
for SJN

11cv02694 BTM (WVG)

1

(Singapore) (Doc. 58-3, Ex. L), current as of April 28, 2010, indicating that at the time of the

2

report, “Edmund Grundy Ellis”2 was a director of SJN (Singapore), and that half of the shares

3

of SJN (Singapore) belonged to “San Juan Navigation Corp.” However, Plaintiffs submitted

4

a more recent ACRA Report, dated January 25, 2012, indicating that all of SJN (Singapore)’s

5

shares are owned by Dasin Holdings Pte. Ltd., and that the only director of SJN (Singapore)

6

is Zhang Lanshui, who has been a director since the date of incorporation in 2004. (Doc

7

57-2, Ex. 5.)

8

Plaintiffs also claim that MFS paid for the bunkers on behalf of SJN, without receiving

9

adequate consideration, but MFS has introduced documentary evidence (in the form of email

10

correspondence with the seller of the bunker fuel and a copy of the invoice) showing its

11

independent obligation to pay. Lastly, Plaintiffs note that SJN has represented on its website

12

that the Mandarin Fortune was part of its “fleet of ships,” but Plaintiffs have not meaningfully

13

refuted MFS’s explanation that charterers (such as SJN) commonly list chartered vessels

14

(such as the Mandarin Fortune) as part of their fleet.

15

In response to Plaintiffs’ objection, MFS has introduced documents demonstrating the

16

corporate relationships between Dasin, MFS, SJN (Singapore) and SJN. The organizational

17

chart appended to MFS’s opposition shows that SJN and MFS are related only through SJN

18

(Singapore)--the joint venture between SJN and MFS’s parent company, Dasin. See Doc.

19

58-4 at 12 of 12. MFS’s characterization of this relationship is supported by additional

20

documentary evidence introduced by MFS showing that SJN (as opposed to SJN

21

(Singapore)) is incorporated in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, is located in the State

22

of Washington, and currently has no officers, directors, or shareholders in common with

23

Dasin, MFS, or SJN (Singapore).

24

supporting the existence of an arms-length business relationship between MFS and SJN,

25

including: (a) SJN’s November 11, 2011 letter informing MFS that SJN is ceasing operations

26

and attempting to arrange a novation of IMI’s sub-charter to MFS; (b) a November 16, 2011

MFS has also introduced documentary evidence

27
2

28

Edmund G. Ellis is the president of SJN and one of its directors, according to a
certificate of incumbency from the Trust Company of the Marshall Islands for “San Juan
Navigation Corp.,” dated April 1, 2008. (Doc. 58-3, Ex. K.)
10

11cv02694 BTM (WVG)

1

email from Dasin to SJN demanding immediate reimbursement of the amount paid on the

2

invoice for the bunkers; and (c) a December 30, 2011 email from an attorney acting on behalf

3

of MFS, informing SJN that MFS has appointed an arbitrator “in respect of any and all

4

disputes arising out of on in connection with the Charterparty” between MFS and SJN (Doc.

5

58-3, Ex. H).

6

The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Gallo’s determination that Plaintiffs have not,

7

at this time, established probable cause that MFS and SJN are in any sort of alter ego

8

relationship.

9
10

c.

Request for limited discovery

11
12

Plaintiffs contend that the magistrate judge abused his discretion by refusing to permit

13

limited discovery regarding Plaintiffs’ alter ego theory. “Discovery should ordinarily be

14

granted where pertinent facts bearing on the question of jurisdiction are controverted or

15

where a more satisfactory showing of the facts is necessary.” Butcher’s Union Local No. 498

16

v. SDC Inv., Inc., 788 F.2d 535, 540 (9th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). “Although a refusal to

17

grant discovery to establish jurisdiction is not an abuse of discretion when it is clear that

18

further discovery would not demonstrate facts sufficient to constitute a basis for jurisdiction,

19

discovery should be granted when, as here, the jurisdictional facts are contested or more

20

facts are needed.” Laub v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003)

21

(citation and quotation marks omitted).

22

In denying Plaintiffs’ request for limited discovery, Magistrate Judge Gallo stated that

23

“all the evidence before the Court indicates that [Plaintiff] is not likely to find anything to

24

support its alter ego theory.” (Doc. 55 at 5.) The Court disagrees. Although Plaintiffs have

25

failed to show probable cause that MFS and SJN are in an alter ego relationship, they have

26

shown a business relationship between MFS and SJN that greatly exceeds the contractual

27

relationship formed by the Mandarin Fortune charter party. Although MFS calls SJN

28

(Singapore) a “former joint venture” between SJN and Dasin (Doc. 48 at 3 (emphasis
11

11cv02694 BTM (WVG)

1

added)), a printout from SJN’s website, dated November 14, 2011, describes SJN

2

(Singapore) as “[o]ur Singapore office,” and describes it as a current joint venture with Dasin.

3

See Doc. 57-2, Ex. 2.

4

Bearing in mind that “[a]n erroneous attachment of funds is extremely burdensome

5

on the companies whose funds are attached[,]”3 the Court finds that expedited, limited

6

discovery is appropriate in this case to afford Plaintiffs an opportunity to establish their alter

7

ego allegations.

8
9

d.

IMI’s motion for leave to intervene

10
11

On January 10, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion (Doc. 26) requesting an order that would

12

attach and garnish debts owed by IMI (the sub-charterer of the Mandarin Fortune in

13

November 2011) to Defendants (in the amount of $77,630.97). On January 23, 2012, IMI

14

filed a motion for leave to intervene, fearing exposure to multiple liabilities on this amount.

15

IMI does not assert any interest in the $300,000 originally attached in this action. On March

16

26, 2012, after IMI’s motion for leave to intervene had been submitted on the papers,

17

Magistrate Judge Gallo denied Plaintiffs’ motion to attach debts owed by IMI, reasoning that

18

Plaintiffs “fail[ed] to provide any basis for the Court to determine that the debt or funds are

19

present in this District such that the Court may assert Rule B jurisdiction over them.” See

20

Doc. 54 at 2 (emphasis in original). No party objected to Magistrate Judge Gallo’s order on

21

this motion, nor does the Court see any reason to question his conclusion.

22

This proceeding is ancillary to the arbitrations in which Plaintiffs seek recovery against

23

Defendant SJN, and the sole purpose of this proceeding is to protect Plaintiffs’ ability to

24

satisfy a judgment against SJN in those arbitrations. See Aqua Stoli Shipping Ltd. v.

25

Gardner Smith Pty Ltd., 460 F.3d 434, 437-38 (2d Cir. 2006) (“The [purpose of the] power

26

to grant attachments in admiralty is . . . two-fold: first, to gain jurisdiction over an absent

27
28

3

REA Navigation, Inc. v. World Wide Shipping Ltd., 08 Civ. 9951, 2009 WL 3334794,
at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2009).
12

11cv02694 BTM (WVG)

1

defendant; and second, to assure satisfaction of a judgment.”). The role of the Court in this

2

proceeding is not to determine the general prioritization of creditors for SJN or IMI. Thus, the

3

Court denies IMI’s motion for leave to intervene without prejudice. To the extent IMI believes

4

the Court has personal jurisdiction over all relevant parties, IMI may seek relief by filing an

5

interpleader action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22.

6
7

CONCLUSION

8
9

For the reasons set forth above, the Court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s order

10

vacating the attachment without prejudice, based on the present record. However, the Court

11

STAYS the vacation of the attachment.

12

Plaintiffs may engage in the discovery authorized by this Court’s Order filed July 11,

13

2012. Such discovery and consideration of the vacation of the stay shall be in accordance

14

with Magistrate Judge Gallo’s Order filed August 9, 2012.

15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
Dated: September 13, 2012
18

HONORABLE BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13

11cv02694 BTM (WVG)