Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

TRANSFIELD ER CAPE LIMITED v. NORTH CHINA SHIPPING LIMITED, 3:12-cv-6091BHS. (2012)

Court: District Court, D. Washington Number: infdco20130102d12
Filed: Dec. 31, 2012
Latest Update: Dec. 31, 2012
Summary: ORDER AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF PROCESS OF MARITIME ATTACHMENT AND GARNISHMENT BENJAMIN H. SETTLE, District Judge. Having reviewed and considered the Motion for Issuance of Process of Maritime Attachment and Garnishment of Plaintiff, TRANSFIELD ER CAPE LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION), and Plaintiff's Verified Complaint, together with the Attorney Declaration that Defendants cannot be found in the District, and finding that the conditions of Rule B of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Mar
More

ORDER AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF PROCESS OF MARITIME ATTACHMENT AND GARNISHMENT

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE, District Judge.

Having reviewed and considered the Motion for Issuance of Process of Maritime Attachment and Garnishment of Plaintiff, TRANSFIELD ER CAPE LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION), and Plaintiff's Verified Complaint, together with the Attorney Declaration that Defendants cannot be found in the District, and finding that the conditions of Rule B of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure appear to exist, the Court hereby:

ORDERS the Clerk to issue Process of Maritime Attachment and Garnishment as prayed for in the Verified Complaint against all property, tangible or intangible, belonging to Defendants NORTH CHINA SHIPPING LIMITED, NORTH CHINA SHIPPING HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED, HONG KONG, GREAT PERIOD INVESTMENTS LIMITED, and MARINA PERIDOT SHIPPING LIMITED, to wit: the M/V OEL CONFIDENCE, IMO Number 9628910, which is currently or will soon be located within the Western District of Washington, in an amount up to USD 57,176,401.27 pursuant to Supplemental Rule B; and

ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall issue further, supplementary writs of maritime attachment and garnishment, on request of the Plaintiff and without further Order of the Court; and

ORDERS that the United States Marshal and/or any Substitute Custodian, which is subsequently appointed by this Court, is authorized to allow the M/V OEL CONFIDENCE to conduct normal cargo operations, both discharging and loading, repair works, and to shift berths (consistent with the U.S. Marshal's requirements), always remaining within this judicial district, and always at the risk and expense of the vessel's interests; and

ORDERS that a copy of this Order be attached to and served with the said Process of Maritime Attachment and Garnishment.

ORDERS that the U.S. Marshal is released and held harmless for any and all costs, fees, liabilities, or other expenses in any way arising out of the attachment of the M/V OEL CONFIDENCE; and

ORDERS that the charges and expenses incurred by the U.S. Marshal shall be deemed in custodia legis, and will be paid from the proceeds of the vessel's sale unless otherwise agreed. If a written objection is timely filed, payment of the disputed charges only shall be made after the objection is resolved by agreement of the parties or by Court Order. Payment of the undisputed charges shall not be affected; and

ORDERS that any property of the Defendants, specifically the M/V OEL CONFIDENCE, IMO Number: 9628910, may be released from attachment without further order of this Court, if the U.S. Marshal receives written authorization to do so from the attorney who requested the attachment and garnishment, stating that he has conferred with all attorneys representing parties to the litigation, and they consent to the request for the release, and also provided that the Court has not entered any subsequent orders modifying this arrangement for the release of the property which was attached pursuant to this Order; and Plaintiff shall hold harmless and indemnify the United States of America, the United States Marshal, their agents, servants, employees, from any and all claims arising from the attachment and release of the vessel as is herein specifically provided; and

ORDERS that any person claiming an interest in the property attached or garnished pursuant to order upon application of the Court, be entitled to a prompt hearing in which Plaintiff shall be required to show why the attachment or garnishment should not be vacated or other relief granted;

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer