KPI Bridge Oil, Inc. v. Wilmington Trust Company, et al
Filing
21
ORDER granting ECF No. 3 Motion for Issuance of Process. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/12/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
Case 3:17-cv-00007-MMD-VPC Document 3 Filed 12/13/16 Page 1 of 5
1
2
3
4
5
Michael R. Mushkin (Nevada State Bar #: 2421)
Michael R. Mushkin & Associates, P.C.
4475 South Pecos Road
Las Vegas, NV 89121
PH: (702) 386-3999
FX: (702) 454-3333
Email: michael@mushlaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
KPI Bridge Oil, Inc.
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
9
KPI BRIDGE OIL, INC.,
10
11
12
13
14
IN ADMIRALTY
Plaintiff,
CASE NO.:
v.
WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY; TERAS
CARGO TRANSPORT (AMERICA) LLC;
TERAS BREAKBULK OCEAN NAVIGATION
ENTERPRISES LLC; TRUENORTH
TRANSPORT LLC,
15
EX PARTE MOTION FOR
ISSUANCE OF PROCESS OF
MARITIME ATTACHMENTAND
GARNISHMENT AND FOR
EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION
Defendants.
16
17
COMES NOW Plaintiff, KPI BRIDGE OIL, INC., and files its Ex Parte Motion for
18
Issuance of Process of Maritime Attachment and Garnishment and for Expedited
19
Consideration of this motion pursuant to Rule B of the Supplemental Rules for Certain
20
Admiralty and Maritime Claims of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (hereinafter
21
"Admiralty Rules"), and respectfully states as follows:
22
1.
Supplemental Admiralty Rules B and E permit a Court to issue an order of
23
maritime attachment if the plaintiff satisfies the filing and service requirements of Rules B and
24
E, and can show that: “(1) Plaintiff has a valid prima facie admiralty claim against the
25
defendant; (2) defendant cannot be found within the district; (3) property of the defendant can
26
be found within the district; and (4) there is no statutory or maritime law bar to the attachment”
27
1
Chalos & Co Ref: 2422.005
Case 3:17-cv-00007-MMD-VPC Document 3 Filed 12/13/16 Page 2 of 5
1
Equatorial Marine Fuel Management Services Pte Ltd. v. MISC Berhad, 591 F.3d 1208, 1210
2
(9th Cir. 2010) (citing Aqua Stoli Shipping Ltd. v. Gardner Smith Pty Ltd., 460 F.3d 434, 445
3
(2d Cir. 2006); Fed. R. Civ. P., Supp. R. B).
4
2.
Plaintiff filed a Verified Complaint pursuant to Rule 9(h) of the Federal Rules
5
of Civil Procedure and Rule B of the Admiralty Rules setting forth Plaintiff’s claim for
6
damages in the amount of USD 210,918.26, together with interest, costs and attorney fees. The
7
allegations of Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint are incorporated herein by reference.
8
3.
Defendants
WILMINGTON
TRUST
COMPANY,
TERAS
CARGO
9
TRANSPORT (AMERICA) LLC, TRUENORTH TRANSPORT LLC, and TERAS
10
BREAKBULK OCEAN NAVIGATION ENTERPRISES LLC (collectively “Defendants”)
11
cannot be found within the District of Nevada for the purposes of Rule B of the Admiralty
12
Rules. This is demonstrated by Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint and the Declaration of Attorney
13
Briton P. Sparkman (Exhibit 9 to the Verified Complaint), filed pursuant to Rule B of the
14
Admiralty Rules and which states, in pertinent part, that Plaintiff is informed and believes:
15
that Defendants cannot be found within the District of Nevada; that to Plaintiff’s knowledge,
16
none of the officers of Defendants are now within the District of Nevada; that Defendants do
17
not maintain offices or telephone listings in the District of Nevada; that Defendants are not
18
incorporated or registered to do business in the State of Nevada; and, that Defendants do not
19
have registered agents for the receipt of service of process in the State of Nevada.
20
4.
Plaintiff is informed and believes Defendants do now, or will during the
21
pendency of this action, have tangible and intangible personal property within the District of
22
Nevada, and more specifically funds deposited by Defendants in bank account(s) to pay
23
operation costs during the period in which Argent Marine Management, Inc. is the operator of
24
the vessel, belonging to Defendants or nominees thereof, and said funds are now or will be
25
during the pendency of this action in the District and under the jurisdiction of this Court, and
26
the funds are property amenable to attachment and garnishment pursuant to Admiralty Rule B.
27
2
Chalos & Co Ref: 2422.005
Case 3:17-cv-00007-MMD-VPC Document 3 Filed 12/13/16 Page 3 of 5
1
5.
Moreover, Plaintiff is informed and believes Argent Marine Management,
2
Inc., manages and holds any bank accounts and associated funds on behalf of the Defendants
3
and it is likely that the said company has in its possession and/or control tangible or
4
intangible property of Defendants.
5
6
7
6.
Furthermore, there is no statutory or maritime bar to the attachment
application.
7.
The instant Rule B maritime attachment action was commenced in order
8
secure the appearance of the Defendants and to obtain security in the amount of USD
9
283,678.37 (see Verified Complaint ¶ 42). See Verified Complaint, ¶¶ 8-35, 41-42; see also
10
Swift & Co. Packers v. Compania Colombiana del Caribe, S.A., 339 U.S. 684, 693, 70 S. Ct.
11
861, 94 L. Ed. 1206 (1950)).
12
8.
Additionally, Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court for expedited
13
consideration of this Motion. As set forth in Plaintiffs Verified Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff
14
seeks to attach tangible and intangible property of the Defendants, including credits, debts,
15
accounts, payments, etc. presently held by garnishees. These items are easily transitory. Due
16
to the specific nature of this Rule B attachment, without a prompt issuance of Plaintiff’s
17
Process of Maritime Attachment and Garnishment, the property Plaintiff seeks to attach
18
could, and likely will, be removed from the jurisdiction before the Court considers and acts
19
on Plaintiff’s application. The Federal Courts have an interest in preserving the efficacy of
20
maritime attachment orders, because without it, “defendants, their ships, and their funds
21
easily could evade the enforcement of substantive rights of admiralty law.” See Yayasan
22
Sabah Dua Shipping SDN BHB v. Scandinavian Liquid Carriers, Ltd., 335 F. Supp. 2d 441,
23
445 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). Accordingly, any delay may very well deprive Plaintiff of the element
24
surprise, allowing Defendants to transfer their property out of the district and beyond the
25
reach of this Court.
26
27
3
Chalos & Co Ref: 2422.005
Case 3:17-cv-00007-MMD-VPC Document 3 Filed 12/13/16 Page 4 of 5
1
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, KPI BRIDGE OIL, INC. respectfully requests that this
2
Court expedite consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for the Issuance of Process of Maritime
3
Attachment and Garnishment and enter an Order authorizing the issuance of Process of
4
Maritime Attachment and Garnishment directing the United States Marshal for District of
5
Nevada to attach any funds related to the vessel the M/V NORFOLK, IMO 9418975 and to
6
garnish any tangible or intangible personal property in the possession, custody, or control of
7
garnishees, specifically, Argent Marine Management, Inc., 2889 Adler Avenue, Suite 300,
8
Incline Village, Nevada 89451, belonging to Defendants, and to grant Plaintiff such other and
9
further relief as may be just, equitable and proper.
10
Respectfully submitted,
11
12
Dated: December 12, 2016
Las Vegas, NV
13
Michael R. Mushkin & Associates, P.C.
By:
14
15
16
17
Attorney for Plaintiff
KPI Bridge Oil, Inc.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
/s/ Michael R. Mushkin
Nevada State Bar number: 2421
4475 South Pecos Road
Las Vegas, NV 89121
PH: (702) 386-3999
FX: (702) 454-3333
Email: michael@mushlaw.com
OF COUNSEL
Briton P. Sparkman
(Pro hac vice application forthcoming)
CHALOS & CO, P.C.
7210 Tickner Street
Houston, TX 77055
PH: (713) 574-9582
FX: (866) 702-4577
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
KPI Bridge Oil, Inc.
January 12, 2017
Dated: _________________
______________________
U.S. District Judge
27
4
Chalos & Co Ref: 2422.005
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?