G.O. America Shipping Company, Inc. v. China Cosco Shipping Corporation Limited et al

Filing 11

REVISED ORDER AUTHORIZING RULE B ATTACHMENT OF ASSETS by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Writ of Attachment and Garnishment Pursuant to Rule B signed by Judge Martinez)(RS) certified copies to USMO

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON (SEATTLE) IN ADMIRALTY 7 8 9 10 11 G.O. AMERICA SHIPPING COMPANY, INC., a corporation registered in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Plaintiff(s), 12 13 v. 14 CHINA COSCO SHIPPING CORPORATION LIMITED, a company registered in the People Republic of China, 15 16 17 18 Case No. 2:17-cv-00912-RSM REVISED ORDER AUTHORIZING RULE B ATTACHMENT OF ASSETS COSCO SHIPPING LINES CO, Ltd. a subsidiary of CHINA COSCO SHIPPING CORPORATION LIMITED 19 21 CHINA SHIPPING INDUSTRY, (Shanghai Changxing) Co. Ltd., a subsidiary of CHINA COSCO SHIPPING CORPORATION LIMITED 22 and 23 COSCO SHIPPING HEAVY INDUSTRY CO., subsidiaries of CHINA COSCO SHIPPING CORPORATION LIMITED, 20 24 25 26 27 28 Defendant(s). TO: The United States District Court Clerk’s Office; and TO: China COSCO Shipping Corporation 29 30 31 32 THIS MATTER having come on by the motion of Plaintiff G.O. AMERICA SHIPPING COMPANY INC. for an order authorizing attachment of Defendants’ assets located within this district, and having considered the Verified Complaint in this action and the pleadings and files herein, the Court finds that the REVISED ORDER AUTHORIZING RULE B ATTACHMENT OF ASSETS PAGE 1 OF 3 CHUNG, MALHAS & MANTEL, PLLC 1511 Third Avenue, Suite 1088 Seattle, Washington 98101 Phone: (206) 264-8999 ♦ Facsimile (206) 264-9098 1 2 Plaintiff has a cause of action against the Defendants in the approximate amount alleged, and that the Defendants cannot be found within this district, except that they possess assets within this district and within 3 4 5 the jurisdiction of this Court; therefore, It is ORDERED that attachment of the following cargo vessels owned by COSCO Shipping Lines Co., Ltd.: 6 (1) COSCO Taicang that will arrive and dock at 4015 SR-509 North Frontage Road; Tacoma Washington 1 on or around June 29, 2017; 7 8 (2) COSCO Europe will arrive and dock at 4015 SR-509 North Frontage Road on or around July 4, 2017; 9 10 12 (3) COSCO Kaohsiung will arrive and dock at 4015 SR-509 North Frontage Road; Tacoma Washington on or around July 10, 2017; it is scheduled to depart July 11, 2017. 13 In addition to the above named vessels, Defendants are authorized to seize all cargo containers and funds 11 14 15 16 17 owned by any of the above named Defendants up to the amount $11,073,420 (USD). This order shall remain in effect until further notice provided by this Court. Furthermore, all persons claiming any interest in the same will be cited to appear and pursuant to Supplemental Admiralty Rule B answer the matters alleged in 18 19 the Complaint. 20 DONE IN OPEN COURT this 29th day of June 2017. 21 22 A 23 24 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 1 Although sailing schedule indicates Seattle, the Port of Seattle and the Port of Tacoma formed the Northwest Seaport Alliance in 2015. On information and belief the ships will be berthed at the Tacoma address at the dates delineated above. REVISED ORDER AUTHORIZING RULE B ATTACHMENT OF ASSETS PAGE 2 OF 3 CHUNG, MALHAS & MANTEL, PLLC 1511 Third Avenue, Suite 1088 Seattle, Washington 98101 Phone: (206) 264-8999 ♦ Facsimile (206) 264-9098 1 2 Presented by: CHUNG, MALHAS & MANTEL, PLLC 3 4 5 /s/ Edward C. Chung Edward C. Chung, WSBA# 34292 Attorney for Plaintiff . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 REVISED ORDER AUTHORIZING RULE B ATTACHMENT OF ASSETS PAGE 3 OF 3 CHUNG, MALHAS & MANTEL, PLLC 1511 Third Avenue, Suite 1088 Seattle, Washington 98101 Phone: (206) 264-8999 ♦ Facsimile (206) 264-9098

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?