The Ninth Circuit just published a decision on Rule B attachment and plaintiff's burden to establish prima facie evidence of its contract claims to withstand a motion to vacate the attachment. Non-admiralty wonks can stop reading here.
In Equatorial Marine Fuel Management Services Pte Ltd. v. MISC Berhad, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's decision to vacate a Rule B maritime attachment. Under the federal admiralty rules, plaintiffs can obtain pre-judgment attachment of a defendant's property under certain conditions. First, the plaintiff must have an admiralty claim. Second, the defendant must not be found in the district. Third, the defendant's property must be in the district. And finally, there must be no statutory or maritime law bar to the attachment.
In this case, Equatorial provided bunkers to MISC but was not paid by the intermediary who was insolvent. MISC's property, a ship, was attached to satisfy Equatorial's claim. MISC moved to vacate the attachment challenging Equatorial's contract claim (MISC and Equatorial did not contract with each other, only with the intermediary). The district court vacated the attachment.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the contract claims and found that because Equatorial did not have prima facie evidence of a breach of contract by MISC, the decision to vacate the attachment was correct.
Comments