King & Prince Seafood Corporation v. Transcity, S.A.

Filing 7

ORDER - SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS re: 4 Order. The Court finds that Plaintiff set forth an adequate request for relief sufficient to justify its issuance of a writ of attachment. The Court directed Plaintiff to provide Defendant with notice of its decision, and a hearing will be held on February 2, 2015, at 1:00 p.m., in order to provide Defendant with a chance to be heard. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 1/27/2015. (csr)

n the UnitebStates; Ditrttt Court
for the boutbern 3BWtrict of georgia
30runoWick flibiiou
KING AND PRINCE SEAFOOD
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
VS.

TRANSCITY, S.A.,
Defendant.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

CV 215-15

SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS

On January 26, 2015, at 4:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time,
this Court held a hearing regarding Plaintiff's request for a
writ of attachment. The Court supplements its Order dated
January 26, 2015, with the following findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
I. Findings of Fact
Plaintiff King and Prince Seafood Corporation ("Plaintiff")
is a Georgia corporation with its principal place of business in
Brunswick, Georgia. Defendant Transcity, S.A. ("Defendant") is
a foreign corporation with its principal place of business in
Guayaquil, Ecuador. Plaintiff is a seafood processor and
distributor, and Defendant is a seafood exporter. According to
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

I

I

Plaintiff's Complaint and supporting documentation, the parties
entered into an agreement for the sale of 971 cartons of frozen
shrimp on or around December 19, 2014. Plaintiff maintains that
Defendant agreed to discount the full invoice price of
$174,131.00 by $15,000 because of quality issues with previous
shipments.
Plaintiff paid the discounted amount, but Defendant refused
to release the bill of lading to Plaintiff for the container
when it arrived in Savannah, Georgia. On January 26, 2015,
Plaintiff paid the remaining $15,000, which Plaintiff contends
it did not owe Defendant. After that point, there could be no
dispute that the price of the shipment was paid in full.
Plaintiff stated that Defendant still refused to release the
bill of lading to Plaintiff, and, on Plaintiff's information and
belief, Defendant made plans to return the container to Ecuador.
II. Conclusions of Law
Diversity jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332
because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of
interests and costs, and there is complete diversity of
citizenship between the parties. Defendant is subject to this
Court's personal jurisdiction because, as Plaintiff has
documented, Defendant transacted and continues to transact
business in Georgia. Defendant thus has sufficient minimum
contacts with Georgia. Venue is proper here, as a substantial
AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

2

part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim
occurred in this District, and the property that is the subject
of the action is located here. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
In federal court, "every remedy is available that, under
the law of the state where the court is located, provides for
seizing a person or property to secure satisfaction of the
potential judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 64(a). Attachment is one
such remedy referred to by and available under this Federal
Rule. Fed. R. Civ. P. 64(b). Georgia law provides that
attachments may issue when any one of six circumstances are
present, and Plaintiff presented evidence of two such
circumstances to the Court. See O.C.G.A. § 18-3-1. First,
Defendant, or debtor, resides outside of the state. O.C.G.A. §
18-3-1(1). Additionally, Plaintiff presented sworn testimony
that, based on information and belief, Defendant was making
arrangements to ship the container out of the country, or in the
words of the Georgia statute, "[us causing his property to be
removed beyond the limits of the state." O.C.G.A. § 18-3-1(6).
As required by Georgia law, Plaintiff submitted an application
in writing, under oath, which set forth the facts showing the
existence of grounds set forth in O.C.G.A. § 18-3-1, the basis
and nature of the claim, and the amount of indebtedness claimed
by Plaintiff. The Court inquired into the facts alleged and set
forth the facts entitling Plaintiff to the writ of attachment.
AO 72A
(Rev. 8182)

3

See O.C.G.A. § 18-3-9. Plaintiff provided documentation and an
affidavit demonstrating that the proper bonds are in place to
cover potential damages caused by this action. See O.C.G.A. §
18-3-10.
The Court finds that Plaintiff set forth an adequate
request for relief sufficient to justify its issuance of a writ
of attachment. The Court directed Plaintiff to provide
Defendant with notice of its decision, and a hearing will be
held on February 2, 2015, at 1:00 p.m., in order to provide
Defendant with a chance to be heard.

This

27TH

day of January, 2015.

LISA GODBEY WOOD, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

AO 72A
(Rev. 8/82)

4