Alaska Growth Capital BIDCO, Inc. v. Klawock Oceanside Inc
ORDER denying plaintiff's 2 Motion to Arrest Vessel; denying as moot plaintiff's 3 Motion to Appoint Substitute Custodian by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
7. ALASKA GROWTH CAPITAL BIDCO, INC.,
an Alaska corporation,
10. AKUTAN, Official Number 288598, its engines,
tackle, rigging, equipment, and other
11. appurtenances, etc., In Rem;
Case No.: C17-0734RSM
ORDER DENYING ISSUANCE
OF ARREST WARRANT
13. KLAWOCK OCEANSIDE, INCORPORATED,
a Washington Corporation, LAURENCE E.
14. LANG, an individual, CARSON V. LANG, an
individual, and MARY L. LANG, an individual,
15. In Personam,
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Arrest of
Vessel AKUTAN. Dkt. #2. The Court has reviewed the verified Complaint, along with
the remainder of the record and hereby denies Plaintiff’s motion for the following reason.
Plaintiff fails to provide sufficient facts or evidence to find that the vessel is currently
within this jurisdiction. The sole allegation in the Complaint regarding jurisdiction is that
“the Vessel that is the subject of this action is now or during the pendency of this action
will be within this judicial district.” Dkt. #1 at ¶ 2 (emphasis added). No specific Vessel
location is provided, and it is not clear where the Marshal in this District would actually
execute any arrest. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Arrest (Dkt. #2) is DENIED.
ORDER DENYING ARREST WARRANT - 1
As a result, Plaintiff’s related Motion for Substitute Custodian (Dkt. #3) is
DENIED AS MOOT.
Nothing in this Order prevents Plaintiff from renewing its motions once additional
evidence that the Vessel is within the Court’s jurisdiction can be provided.
DATED this 11th day of May, 2017.
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT
ORDER DENYING ARREST WARRANT - 2
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?