Michele Bottiglieri Armatore S.p.A v. Europa Shipping Inc

Filing 12

ORDER denying 11 Motion for Reconsideration by Judge Benjamin H. Settle. (MGC)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7

8 MICHELE BOTTIGLIERI ARMATORE
S.p.A,
9
Plaintiff,
10
v.
11
EUROPA SHIPPING, INC.,
12
Defendant.
13

CASE NO. C14-5257 BHS
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

14
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Michele Bottiglieri Armatore
15
S.p.A.’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 11).
16
On March 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed a verified complaint and an ex parte motion for
17
order for issuance of process of maritime attachment and garnishment. Dkts. 1 & 2. The
18
Court denied the motion for reasons stated therein. Dkt. 10. Plaintiff filed a motion for
19
reconsideration. Dkt. 11. The Local Rules of Procedure provide as follows:
20
21
22

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will ordinarily
deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the
prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not
have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.

ORDER - 1

1
Local Rule CR 7(h)(1).
2
With regard to a manifest error of law, at most, district courts are split whether an
3
attachment should issue during arbitration. West of England Ship Owners Mutual Ins.
4
Ass’n v. McAllister Brothers, Inc., 829 F. Supp. 125, 127 (E.D. Pa. 1993). Therefore,
5
denying Plaintiff’s motion was not a manifest error of law.
6
With regard to due process, there are no facts before the Court to show that notice
7
is impractical. The Court is unaware of, and Plaintiff has not provided, authority for the
8
proposition that a district court is precluded from requiring notice when an adversarial
9
proceeding has been initiated. Moreover, there is an absence of facts regarding the issue
10
of whether this is Plaintiff’s only opportunity to attach property of Europa. Therefore,
11
the Court will honor the notion of notice and opportunity to be heard instead of altering
12
the status quo based on an anticipated award in concurrent arbitration. Plaintiff’s motion
13
for reconsideration is DENIED.
14
Dated this 28th day of March, 2014.
15

A

16
17

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 2