CH Offshore, Ltd. v. Mexiship Ocean CCC S.A. de C.V. et al

Filing 70

ORDER. Non-Party, Mexiship Ocean CCC, LLC's Motion to Vacate Writs of Maritime Garnishment (Document No. 32 ) is GRANTED. The Court further ORDERS that Plaintiff CH Offshore, Ltd.'s Motion to Strike Mexiship Texas's Submissions (Document No. 67 ) is DENIED. THIS IS A FINAL JUDGMENT. (Signed by Judge David Hittner) Parties notified. (jww4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
CH OFFSHORE, LTD.
Plaintiff,
v.
MEXISHIP OCEAN CCC S.A. DE

c.v.,
Defendant,
and
VANTAGE BANK TEXAS,.
Garnishee.

November 22, 2024
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

§
§
§
§
§ Civil Action No; H'."24-219
§
§
§
§
.§
§
§
§
§
§
§
ORDER

Pending before the Court are Non-Party, Mexiship Ocean CCC, LLC's•
Motion to Vacate Writs of Maritime Garnishment (Document No. 32), and Plaintiff
CH Offshore, Ltd.' s Motion to Strike Submissions (Document No. 67). Having
considered the motion, submissions, and applicable law, the Court determines that
Non-Party Mexiship Ocean CCC, LLC's'.motion should be granted, and Plaintiff CH
Offshore, Ltd. 's motion should be denied.
I. BACKGROUND.
This is a maritime law case. Plaintiff CH Offshore, Ltd. ("CH Offshore"), a
Singapore company specializing in the supply of offshore vessels used in the marine •

oil and gas industry, agreed to charter an offshore supply ship ("the Vessel") to
Defendant, Mexiship Ocean CCC S.A. DE C.V. ("Mexiship Ocean"), a marine oil
and gas company based in Mexico, for a period of eighteen months. CH Offshore
contends that Mexiship violated the parties charter agreement and retained the
Vessel after the contractual period had expired. CH Offshore and Mexiship Ocean
participated in arbitration proceedings in Singapore, in which CH Offshore received
an arbitration award entitling them to recover monetarily against Mexiship Ocean.
Based on the foregoing, on January 19, 2024, CH Offshore filed suit in this
Court based on federal question jurisdiction pursuant to maritime law, seeking
garnishment from Mexiship Ocean's U.S. affiliate company, Mexiship Ocean CCC,
LLC ("Mexiship Texas"), who maintains a bank account at Vantage Bank Texas in
McAllen, Texas. On January 23, 2024, the Court granted CH Offshore's motion for
a writ of garnishment against Vantage Bank Texas. On March 13, 2024, a non-party
to this case, Mexiship Texas, filed a motion pursuant to Supplemental Admiralty
Rule E(8) to vacate the writ of garnishment placed upon Vantage Bank Texas by the
Court. On April 2, 2024, the Court held a motion hearing, and subsequently deferred
ruling on ·Mexiship Texas's motion until after the completion of Court ordered
limited discovery.
IL STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under maritime law, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit a court to
exercise quasi in rem jurisdiction via an order of maritime attachment. Fed. R. Civ.
2

P. Adm. Supp. R. B(l )(a). "Maritime attachment serves both to obtain jurisdiction
over a defendant through its property and to assure satisfaction of the claim." Klnvs.,

Inc. v. B-Gas Ltd., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 8423 at *2 (5th Cir. 2022). "Appellate
courts have made clear that an attachment should issue if the plaintiff shows that 1) .
it ,has a valid prima facie admiralty claim against the defendant; 2) the defendant·
cannot be found.within the district; 3) the defendant's property may be found within
the district; and 4) there is no statutory or maritime law bar to the attachment."Aqua

Stoli Shipping Ltd. v. Garner Smith Pty Ltd., 460 F.3d 434, 445 (2nd Cir. 2006).
Thus, "if, at any point, a plaintiff in a maritime attachment case ceases to be able to
satisfy the requirements of Rule B, a district court may - and indeed should - revisit
and vacate any orders of attachment." Sinoying Logistics PTE Ltd. v. Yi Da Xin

Trading Corp., 619 F.3d 207, 212 (2d Cir. 2010)(emphasis in original).
III. LAW & ANALYSIS
Mexiship Texas contends that CH Offshore cannot meet its burden to show
that Mexiship Ocean's property is found within this district. Mexiship Texas further
•contends that the contents of the Vantage Bank Texas account currently under
garnishment belongs to Mexiship Texas, not Mexiship Ocean. Mexiship Texas
argues that it is an all together separate entity from Mexiship Ocean, and is not in
possession of any goods, chattel, credits or effects, ofMexiship Ocean.
In response to Mexiship Texas's motion to vacate, CH Offshore filed a
proposed order with the Court after the limited discovery period expired, stating that
3

the Court should allow leave to amend its complaint to "plead applicable Texas
garnishment law as an alternative basis for the continued garnishment of the attached
funds." 1 CH Offshore contends that "at this stage, [it] only has to plead a plausible
case that the monies at issue are properly garnishable under some legal theory, with
some legal basis for the attachment to be issued." 2 In response, Mexiship Texas
contends that CH Offshore' s mere filing of a proposed order is insufficient arid note
that CH Offshore has not filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint
or argued any good cause reason to justify any further amendment of the complaint
at this time. Based on the foregoing, the Court determines that CH Offshore's has
not demonstrated good cause such to warrant leave to file a third amended complaint.
Thus, the Court will now consider the merits ofMexiship Texas's motion to vacate
the writ of garnishment.
The central issue now before the Court is whether CH Offshore has met its
burden to satisfy the requirements of Rule B, by showing that the Defendant's
property resides within the district. Mexiship Texas contends that CH Offshore has
conceded it has no case under Rule B, noting for the Court CH Offshore's proposed
order in which they state that"the forthcoming amended complaint ... will omit Rule

1

Plaintiff's Proposed Order, Document No. 65 at 2.

1

Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Objections and Response to Plaintiff's Proposed Order
Denying Motion to Vacate, Document No. 67 at 5.

4

B as the basis for garnishment."). 3 The Court's independent review of the record
shows no evidence to support the premise that Mexiship Texas maintains any of
Mexiship Ocean's property within the State of Texas, let alone in an account at
Vantage Bank Texas. Thus, because CH Offshore has not met their burden in
demonstrating that Mexiship Ocean's property is presently in the district, the Court
determines that vacating the writ of garnishment against Vantage Bank Texas is
appropriate in the present matter. Additionally, based on strong circuit precedent
regarding maritime attachment law, the Court finds no other basis to wield
jurisdiction over the defendant in this matter.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Non-Party, Mexiship Ocean CCC, LLC's Motion to Vacate

Writs of Maritime Garnishment (Document No. 32) is GRANTED. The Court
further
ORDERS that Plaintiff CH Offshore, Ltd.'s Motion to Strike Mexiship

Texas's Submissions (Document No. 67) is DENIED.
THIS IS A FINAL JUDGMENT.

3

Plaintiff's Proposed Order, Document No. 65 at 32.
5

SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this..,_~ day of November, 2024.

DAVID HITTNER
United States DistrictJudge .

6