Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01833/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01833-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Schilling Robotics, LLC
Counter Claimant
Subsea Robotics, LP
Plaintiff

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUBSEA ROBOTICS, LP,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCHILLING ROBOTICS, LLC,

Defendant.

No. 2:13-cv-01833-MCE-EFB

ORDER

Presently before the Court is Subsea Robotics, LP’s (hereinafter “Subsea”) 

Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s prior order, ECF No. 32, in light of newly 

discovered evidence, Mot. for Reconsideration, Dec. 15, 2013, ECF No. 33. Specifically, 

Subsea argues the Court should reconsider its prior ruling, denying Subsea’s motion for 

a prejudgment writ of attachment, because Subsea “has discovered important new 

evidence” that Schilling Robotics, LLC (hereinafter “Schilling”) is pursuing a sale of two 

underwater remotely operated vehicles (or “ROVs”) manufactured pursuant to a contract 

that is the subject of an arbitration agreement. Id. at 2. Subsea contends this new 

evidence shows that a sale may occur and that sale “would . . . render relief in arbitration 

‘ineffectual,’ because it would eliminate Subsea’s ability to secure specific performance.” 

Id. at 6. Schilling opposes the motion for reconsideration, arguing that Subsea has not 

Case 2:13-cv-01833-MCE-EFB Document 40 Filed 01/29/14 Page 1 of 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

2

explained why “an award of . . . monetary damages (instead of specific performance) 

would” be ineffectual or otherwise inadequate, and Schilling contends Subsea’s 

argument is undercut by the fact that the “contract only provides for monetary relief,” and 

“Subsea has already admitted they want the ROVs for resale (rather than for use).” 

Opp’n, Jan. 2, 2014, ECF No. 36, at 3.

The Court has considered the arguments set forth in Subsea’s motion for 

reconsideration, Schilling’s opposition to that motion, and Subsea’s reply. Because 

Subsea does not sufficiently explain why damages would be inadequate in this case, 

such that an arbitration award “may be rendered ineffectual without provisional relief,” 

Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 12981.8(b); see also Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879, 925 

(1988) (“damages after the fact are considered an ‘adequate remedy’ in all but the most 

extraordinary cases.”) (collecting cases), Subsea’s motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 

33, is DENIED.

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2014

 1 Finding that oral argument would not be of material assistance, the Court previously ordered this 

matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g).

Case 2:13-cv-01833-MCE-EFB Document 40 Filed 01/29/14 Page 2 of 2