Fedcom Europe Ltd. v. Spark Trading DMCC

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re:#98275 9 MOTION to Vacate Maritime Attachment, filed by Spark Trading DMCC...Accordingly, the Court lacks admiralty jurisdiction under Rule B. Its original order (3) must be vacated, and the action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate motion (9) and to close the case. (Signed by Judge Richard J. Holwell on 11/19/09) (cd) Modified on 11/25/2009 (eef).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FEDCOM EUROPE LTD., 08 Civ. 10717 Plaintiff, -againstSPARK TRADING DMCC, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On December 16, 2008, this Court granted plaintiff's request for process of maritime attachment and garnishment because it found that the conditions set forth in Rule B appeared to exist. The defendant subsequently moved to vacate the attachment order. After defendant filed its motion, but before this Court had ruled on it, the Second Circuit issued a decision holding that "EFTs [electronic fund transfers] are neither the property of the originator nor the beneficiary while briefly in the possession of an intermediary bank" and "cannot be subject to attachment under Rule B." Shipping Corp. of India Ltd. v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd., Nos. 08-3477, 08-3758, 2009 WL 3319675, at *10­*11 (2d Cir. Oct. 16, 2009). On October 26, 2009, this Court ordered the plaintiff to show cause within twenty days why, in light of Shipping Corp. of India, the original process of maritime attachment and garnishment should not be vacated and the case dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On November 13, 2009, plaintiff filed a memorandum in response. In its brief, plaintiff argues that Shipping Corp. of India should not be applied retroactively to vacate the Court's prior order of attachment in this case. It argues that to do so here would work inequity: in proceeding with arbitration in London, the plaintiff "justifiably relied on the