Bellatrix

Washington Mutual Bank v. Bellatrix

Good Law
2 F. Supp. 2d 1458·1997 WL 881226
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaAugust 8, 1997C-97-1069 WHOCalifornia923 words

Opinion

Opinion

Orrick, J.

OPINION AND ORDER

In a complaint in admiralty, plaintiff Washington Mutual Bank (“Bank”) brought a claim in rem against defendant BELLATRIX (“Vessel”), and claims in personam against defendants Robert' and Myrna Mus-setter (the “Mussetters”) and William Claude, Inc. The Court issued a warrant for the arrest of the Vessel, and defendants now move to set aside the warrant. For the reasons hereinafter stated, defendants’ motion to set aside the warrant for arrest of the Vessel is DENIED.

I.

The Bank instituted this action to collect on a promissory note and preferred ship mortgage constituting a maritime lien. The complaint was filed on March 27, 1997, along with an ex parte application for the issuance of a warrant of maritime arrest. The Court authorized the issuance of the warrant on the same day, and the Vessel was arrested on April 17, 1997. On May 12, 1997, the complaint was served upon the Mussetters, owners of the Vessel. On June 2, 1997, they answered the complaint, and moved the Court to set aside the warrant.

II.

Defendants make this motion principally on the ground that they were not “cited to answer,” as required by the warrant. (Defs’. Mot. at 1.) Defendants…

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.