SAMRAT CONTAINER LINES, INC. v. SAFEWATER LINES INDIA PVT. LTD. et al

Filing 56

OPINION & ORDER denying 42 Motion to Vacate ; denying 46 Motion for Writ of Garnishment. The Complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 5/21/15. (sr, )

CLOSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
SAMRAT CONTAINER LINES, INC.,

:
:
Plaintiff, :
:
:
v.
:
SAFEWATER LINES INDIA PVT, LTD.
:
:
et al.,
:
Defendant and Garnishees. :
:

Civil Action No. 14-6110 (SRC)
OPINION & ORDER

CHESLER, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on two motions: 1) the motion to vacate the
attachment by Defendant Safewater Lines India Pvt. Ltd. (“Safewater”); and 2) the motion for an
order for issuance of process of maritime attachment and garnishment by Plaintiff SAMRAT
Container Lines, Inc. (“SAMRAT”). For the reasons stated below, both motions will be denied.
As to the motion to vacate the attachment,1 which is unopposed, the motion will be
denied as moot. There is no dispute that the Rule B attachment Order contained an express limit
to 90 days, that it has expired, and this Court’s Order of attachment has expired. There is no
presently effective attachment to vacate.
As to the motion for an order for issuance of process of maritime attachment and
garnishment, the motion will be denied. Rule B of the Supplemental Rules for Certain
Admiralty and Maritime Claims to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Supplemental

1

The motion is titled a motion to vacate the attachment and to dismiss the Complaint, but
the brief contains no application to dismiss the Complaint.

Rules”) sets forth the process by which a party can attach another party’s assets. The rule
provides:
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.
Fed. R. Civ. P., Adm. Supp. Rule B(1)(a). In the opening brief for this motion, Plaintiff named
Haba-Sped as garnishee, but subsequently filed a supplementary brief in which it stated that
Haba-Sped should be replaced as garnishee by International Logistics Association LLC (“ILA”).
In opposition, Safewater argues that Plaintiff has made no demonstration that any of its
property is in the hands of the proposed garnishee, ILA. Indeed, the only support Plaintiff offers
for its application is the affidavit of the President of SAMRAT, Satish V. Anchan, who states
that unidentified individuals told him that Safewater now uses ILA as its agent. This Court does
not issue maritime attachments based on vague rumors. There is nothing in the record presently
before this Court to indicate that it may exercise in rem jurisdiction over any property held by
ILA. The motion for an order for issuance of process of maritime attachment and garnishment
will be denied.
Under Third Circuit law, this Court has an obligation to satisfy itself that it has subject
matter jurisdiction over a case and to address the issue sua sponte.2 This Court lacks in
personam jurisdiction over the Defendant. The asserted basis for the exercise of jurisdiction in
this case was in rem jurisdiction over property subject to a maritime claim, but Plaintiff has

2

Desi's Pizza, Inc. v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 321 F.3d 411, 420 (3d Cir.2003) (citing
Bracken v. Matgouranis, 296 F.3d 160, 162 (3d Cir.2002)).
2

given the Court no basis to believe that any such property is located within this Court’s territorial
jurisdiction. This Court finds no basis for it to exercise jurisdiction over this case, and the
Complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
For these reasons,
IT IS on this 21st day of May, 2015
ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to vacate the attachment and dismiss the Complaint
(Docket Entry No. 42) is DENIED as moot; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for an order for issuance of process of maritime
attachment and garnishment (Docket Entry No. 46) is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Complaint is hereby DISMISSED for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
s/Stanley R. Chesler
STANLEY R. CHESLER
United States District Judge

3