Proshipline Inc. v. Aspen Infrastructures Ltd.

Opinion by Judge BEEZER; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge TALLMAN.

Plaintiffs-appellants ProShipLine, Inc. and EP-Team, Inc. appeal from two district court decisions in favor of defendantappellee Aspen Infrastructures Ltd. Both decisions involve a writ of maritime attachment that ProShipLine and EP-Team obtained against Aspen pursuant to Rule B of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule B”). The district court held in the first decision that it could not compel Aspen to post security in lieu of garnishment. This deci *684 sion forced ProShipLine and EP-Team to either waive their right to garnish Aspen’s property pursuant to a previously obtained Rule B writ or to garnish the property despite alleged impracticability. The district court, in the second decision, equitably vacated ProShipLine’s and EP-Team’s Rule B writ and exonerated security posted for that writ. The district court further ordered ProShipLine and EP-Team to reimburse Aspen for the value of the property they seized in accord with that writ.

We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We hold that…

concurring in part, dissenting in part:

I agree with the majority’s analysis regarding ProShipLine, and concur in the opinion affirming the vacatur of attachment against that company. However, I disagree that the writ of attachment was appropriate as to EP-Team, and as to that portion of the court’s opinion, I respectfully dissent.

I would hold that Judge Franklin D. Burgess did not err under Rule E by vacating the Rule B writ of attachment against EP-Team. Because our jurisprudence interpreting Rule E vacatur is in its infancy, we have rarely had the opportunity to address when vacatur is appropriate. In Equatorial Marine Fuel Management Services Pte Ltd. v. MISC Berhad, 591 F.3d 1208, 1209-10 (9th Cir.2010), we upheld vacatur because the plaintiff failed to show a need for attaching the defendant’s property. There we explained that Rule B attachment of a defendant’s property is appropriate if: “(1) plaintiff has a valid prima facie admiralty claim against the defendant; (2) defendant cannot be found within the district; (3) property of the defendant can be found within the district; and (4) there is no statutory or maritime law bar to the attachment.” Id. (citing Aqua Stoli…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PROSHIPLINE INC; EP-TEAM INC., 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. No. 08-35337 ASPEN INFRASTRUCTURES LTD,  D.C. No. 3:07-cv-05660-FDB formerly known as Suzlon Infrastructure Ltd; SUZLON OPINION

INFRASTURCTURE LTD,

Defendants-Appellees.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Franklin D. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 7, 2009—Seattle, Washington

Filed February 3, 2010

Before: Robert R. Beezer, Ronald M. Gould and Richard C. Tallman, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Beezer; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Tallman COUNSEL

Steven V. Gibbons, Gibbons & Associates, P.S., Seattle, Washington, for the plaintiffs-appellants.

Robert J. Bocko, Keesal, Young & Logan, Seattle, Washing- ton, for the defendant-appellee.

OPINION

BEEZER, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs-appellants ProShipLine, Inc. and EP-Team, Inc. appeal from two district court decisions in favor of defendant- appellee Aspen Infrastructures Ltd. Both decisions…