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)

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