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

Filing 4

ORDER denying plainitff's 3 Motion for Rule B Attachment; plaintiff's motion to appoint special process server 3 is denied as moot signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 5 6 7 8 9 Case No. C17-0912RSM G.O. AMERICA SHIPPING COMPANY, INC., a corporation registered in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RULE B ATTACHMENT v. 13 14 15 16 17 18 CHINA COSCO SHIPPING CORPORATION LIMITED, a company registered in the People Republic of China, CHINA SHIPPING INDUSTRY, (Shanghai Changxing) Co. Ltd., and COSCO SHIPPING HEAVY INDUSTRY CO., subsidiaries of CHINA COSCO SHIPPING CORPORATION LIMITED, Defendants. 19 20 21 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion and Declaration for Rule B Attachment. Dkt. #3. Rule B maritime attachments serve the dual purpose of obtaining 22 23 jurisdiction over an absent defendant and securing collateral for a potential judgment in plaintiff’s 24 favor. Aqua Stoli Shipping Ltd. v. Gardner Smith Pty. Ltd., 460 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 2006), 25 overruled on other grounds by Shipping Corp. of India Ltd. v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd., 585 F.3d 26 58, 61 (2d Cir. 2009) (mini en banc). The elements for a Rule B writ of maritime attachment are: 27 “(1) Plaintiff has a valid prima facie admiralty claim against the defendant; (2) defendant cannot 28 ORDER FOR RULE B ATTACHMENT - 1 1 be found within the district; (3) property of the defendant can be found within the district; and 2 (4) there is no statutory or maritime law bar to the attachment.” Equatorial Marine Fuel Mgmt. 3 Servs. Pte Ltd. v. MISC Berhad, 591 F.3d 1208, 1210 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Aqua Stoli Shipping, 4 460 F.3d at 445; Fed. R. Civ. P., Supp. R. B). 5 In the instant matter, Plaintiff has satisfied elements one and two – it appears to have a 6 7 valid prima facie admiralty claim against Defendants and has filed a sufficient Declaration 8 demonstrating that Defendants cannot be found within the District. However, Plaintiff fails to 9 convince the Court that property of Defendants can be found within the District. Indeed, all 10 Plaintiff alleges is that “upon information and belief” the Defendants have or will have property 11 in this District. Dkt. #3 at 2. The motion itself, the proposed Order and proposed Writ for the 12 13 U.S. Marshals all fail to identify any specific property to attach. 14 Accordingly, having reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule B Attachment, and the 15 remainder of the record, the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule B 16 Attachment (Dkt. #3) is DENIED. 17 18 19 20 21 22 Additionally, Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Special Process Server (Dkt. #3) is DENIED AS MOOT. Nothing in this Order precludes Plaintiff from renewing its motion once specific property has been identified. DATED this 14 day of June, 2017. 23 24 25 A 26 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28 ORDER FOR RULE B ATTACHMENT - 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?