Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-03801/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-03801-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arabian Gas and Oil Development Company
Plaintiff
SAO Wisdom, S.A.
Defendant
Wisdom Marines Lines Co., Ltd.
Defendant
Wisdom Marines Lines, S.A.
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARABIAN GAS AND OIL 

DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

WISDOM MARINES LINES, S.A., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-03801-DMR 

ORDER REQUESTING 

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

Re: Dkt. No. 28

The court has reviewed the parties’ briefing on the Defendants Wisdom Marines Lines, 

S.A., Wisdom Marines Lines Co., Ltd., and SAO Wisdom, S.A.’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff

Arabian Gas and Oil Development Company’s verified complaint under Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), and in the alternative to set aside the court’s order granting the 

writ of attachment, and in the alternative for an order to reduce the amount of security and increase 

the amount of the undertaking [Docket No. 28]. The court requests supplemental briefing, of no 

more than seven pages per side, to address the following issues:

1) Whether an action solely seeking pre-award attachment in connection with a pending 

foreign arbitration “falls under” the New York Convention pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 203

for purposes of federal subject matter jurisdiction; 

2) Whether there is a procedure for obtaining provisional remedies in the London 

arbitration; 

3) Whether the complaint, as filed, satisfies the statutory requirements for a writ of 

attachment under California Civil Procedure § 481.010 et seq., including whether the 

complaint must state a claim for relief that is separate from the request for writ of 

attachment (e.g., a breach of contract claim); 

4) The effect the stay of arbitral proceedings on Plaintiff’s counterclaim has on the

Case 4:16-cv-03801-DMR Document 47 Filed 08/01/16 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

probable validity of Plaintiff’s claim; 

5) Whether the United Kingdom’s arbitration decisions are enforceable in Taiwan; 

6) Whether Defendants have fixed assets that can be used to satisfy a potential judgment

award. 

The parties shall file their supplemental briefing by no later than 9:00 a.m. on August 3, 

2016. In responding to the first issue, the parties shall not rely on cases where the basis for federal 

subject matter jurisdiction was complete diversity. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2016

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:16-cv-03801-DMR Document 47 Filed 08/01/16 Page 2 of 2