Sea Foods Co. Ltd. v. Om Foods Co. Ltd.

Good Law
150 Cal. App. 4th 769·58 Cal. Rptr. 3d 700
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 23, 2007B184687, B190151California7,641 words

Opinion

Opinion

Croskey, J.

When Asian shrimp exporter O.M. Foods (OM). went bankrupt, Red Chamber Co., a California importer, was in possession of shrimp it had received on consignment from. OM. Once Red Chamber had sold the shrimp, three different entities sought the $3.6 million proceeds: (1) Cooperatieve Céntrale Raiffeisen-Boerleenbank B.A (Rabobank), a bank which had funded OM’s operations, to which OM was in debt; (2) Bank of Asia (B of A), another bank which had funded OM, to which OM was in debt; and (3) Sea Foods Company Limited, OM’s parent company to which OM also was in debt. While the two banks sued Red Chamber directly, Sea Foods instead brought suit against OM, and then sought to collect the consignment sale proceeds in Red Chamber’s possession by means of a writ of attachment. A11 three entities were successful in obtaining money from Red Chamber. Red Chamber settled with Rabobank and B of A. After Sea Foods obtained a default judgment against OM, Red Chamber was ordered to pay $3.6 million to Sea Foods pursuant to its writ of attachment. We here consider Red Chamber’s appeal of the order directing it to pay $3.6 million to Sea Foods pursuant to the writ of attachment, which was…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.