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

Filing 62

ORDER denying Special Claimant's 55 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM)

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. C17-0912 RSM G.O. AMERICA SHIPPING COMPANY, INC., a corporation registered in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 ORDER DENYING SPECIAL CLAIMANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION v. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 CHINA COSCO SHIPPING CORPORATION LIMITED, a company registered in the People Republic of China; COSCO SHIPPING LINES CO, Ltd. a subsidiary of CHINA COSCO SHIPPING CORPORATION LIMITED; CHINA SHIPPING INDUSTRY, (Shanghai Changxing) Co. Ltd., a subsidiary of CHINA COSCO SHIPPING CORPORATION LIMITED; and COSCO SHIPPING HEAVY INDUSTRY CO., subsidiaries of CHINA COSCO SHIPPING CORPORATION LIMITED, 22 Defendants. 23 24 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Specially-Appearing Claimant COSCO 25 Atlantic Shipping Ltd.’s (hereinafter “COSCO Atlantic”) Motion for Reconsideration. Dkt. #55. 26 Although it was successful on its prior Motion to Vacate Rule B Attachment, it now asks the 27 28 ORDER - 1 1 2 Court to amend its Order granting that motion to include a legal standard that the Court did not discuss. Id. 3 “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored.” LCR 7(h). “The court will ordinarily deny 4 such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of 5 new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with 6 7 reasonable diligence.” LCR 7(h)(1). In this case, the Court is not persuaded that it is necessary 8 to amend its Order. Special Claimant complains that the Court did not state the complete standard 9 required to prevail on a Rule E(4)(f) hearing. Specifically, Special Claimant notes that the Court 10 should have set forth a probable cause standard, particularly because Plaintiff conceded that was 11 the correct standard. Special Claimant misconstrues the Court’s Order. The Court’s written 12 13 Order was meant to supplement the oral ruling provided on the record on July 10, 2017. See Dkt. 14 #47. During that hearing, the Court noted, and Plaintiff conceded, that Plaintiff had the burden 15 of showing probable cause for the vessel arrest. While the Court did not discuss that standard 16 again in the written Order, it does not mean that the Court disposed of or denied that burden in 17 18 any way. Rather, the Court focused on a different reason to grant the motion. Accordingly, the 19 Court finds it unnecessary to amend its written Order. Accordingly, Special Claimant’s Motion 20 for Reconsideration (Dkt. #55) is DENIED. 21 DATED this 3rd day of August 2017. 22 A 23 24 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 ORDER - 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?