Proshipline Inc et al v. Aspen Infrastructures Ltd et al

Filing 159

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle denying 148 Motion for Reconsideration.(TG)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER - 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA PROSHIPLINE, INC. and EP-TEAM, INC., CASE NO. C07-5660BHS Plaintiffs, v. ASPEN INFRASTRUCTURES, LTD., f/k/a Suzlon Infrastructure, Ltd., et al., Defendants. This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff EPT-Team's ("EPT") motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 148). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby denies EPT's motion for the reasons discussed herein. I. DISCUSSION This admiralty case arises out of a dispute between the parties over an alleged breach of contract. For a more complete factual background see the Court's prior order vacating the writ of attachment on behalf of EPT individually and vacating the Court's prior order that reinstated the writ (Dkt. 147). EPT now moves for reconsideration of that order and for reinstatement of the writ. Dkt. 148 (arguing that the Court erred by applying American contract law instead of English contract law). The Court ordered and the parties provided additional briefing on the motion for reconsideration. See Dkts. 151, 153, 157. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 In short, the parties dispute the extent to which EPT assigned its rights to PSL. The Court concluded that the assignment of rights operated to prevent EPT from now maintaining an action for a Rule B writ of attachment. See Dkt. 147. EPT, however, argues that its assignment, according to the interim decision of the arbitration panel, operates to permit EPT to maintain this action for a writ of attachment. See Dkts. 148, 153.1 In opposition, Aspen argues that, under English law, the initial assignment of rights by EPT to PSL prevents EPT from coming back now and maintaining this action. Aspen cites several statements from the arbitration panel's interim decision that support 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This argument appears to be different from that advanced in the prior motion to reinstate the writ. See Dkt. 147 at 6. Previously EPT argued that while its initial assignment may have operated to foreclose maintaining the writ against Aspen, PSL has since reassigned the rights back to EPT. Id. A new argument is not generally permissible on reconsideration. However, to the extent this current argument merely advances a nuance on the prior argument, the argument remains logically curious. If EPT has, as it suggests, always had the right to maintain the Rule B writ of attachment action because it never assigned its rights in a way that would prevent it from maintaining such an action, then there would be no reason to have PSL reassign the rights: EPT would already have had such rights under its own logic. The argument remains unavailing. ORDER - 2 1 this conclusion. See Dkt. 152 at 3 (Declaration of Simon Kverndal QC) (quoting sections of the Singapore arbitration panel's interim order) In its order (Dkt. 147), the Court also relied on those statements in determining that EPT's assignment of rights (but not obligations) prevents it from now maintaining a Rule B writ of attachment action in this Court. Dkt. 147 at 6 (citing Signapore arbitration panel's decision and EPT's own complaint acknowledging the assignment). The Court has reviewed the English law as submitted by the parties' respective experts and concludes that the arbitration panel determined that EPT assigned its rights to PSL and that such assignment, consistent with English law, operates to prevent EPT from now maintaining a Rule B writ of attachment action in this Court under American law. Thus, the outcome in the Court's prior order (Dkt. 147) is consistent with English law. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Based on the parties' briefing and supporting declarations on reconsideration, the Court concludes that EPT has not carried its burden on reconsideration and therefore, its motion (Dkt. 148) is denied without prejudice. However, should EPT be able to obtain an affidavit or declaration from the Singapore arbitration panel regarding its interim decision that supports EPT's position regarding the operative effect of its initial assignment of rights to PSL, the Court would consider a renewed motion for reconsideration.2 II. ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that EPT's motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 33) is DENIED without prejudice for the reasons discussed herein. DATED this 8th day of March, 2011. A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge In its surreply (Dkt. 157) to EPT's reply to the motion for reconsideration, Aspen moves to strike EPT's request for permitting inquiry to the arbitration panel to resolve the instant dispute. Because the order herein provides EPT an opportunity to obtain a statement from the arbitration panel regarding the operative value of its initial assignment of rights to PSL, the Court denies Aspen's the motion to strike. ORDER - 3 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?