IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-30984

STEMCOR USA INCORPORATED, 

 

 Plaintiff 

 

v. 

 

CIA SIDERURGICA DO PARA COSIPAR, ET AL., 

 

 Defendants 

---------------------------------------------- 

 

DAEWOO INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, 

 

 Plaintiff - Appellant 

 

v. 

 

THYSSENKRUPP MANNEX GMBH, 

 

 Intervenor Plaintiff - Appellee 

 

v. 

 

AMERICA METALS TRADING L.L.P., ET AL., 

 

 Defendants 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 1, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-30984 Document: 00514141369 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/01/2017
No. 16-30984

2 

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, GRAVES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. 

STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:

This case is a dispute between two creditors, each of which attached the 

same pig iron owned by America Metals Trading L.L.P. (“AMT”). PlaintiffAppellant Daewoo International Corp. (“Daewoo”) sued AMT in the Eastern 

District of Louisiana, seeking an order compelling AMT to arbitrate and an 

attachment of the pig iron. Daewoo invoked both maritime attachment and 

the Louisiana non-resident attachment statute, which allows attachments in 

aid of any “action for a money judgment.” La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 3542. Citing 

both types of attachment, the district court granted Daewoo its attachment. 

Following Daewoo’s attachment, Intervenor-Appellee Thyssenkrupp Mannex 

GMBH (“TKM”) attached the same pig iron in Louisiana state court. TKM 

then intervened in the federal suit, arguing that Daewoo’s attachment should 

be vacated because (1) maritime jurisdiction was improper and (2) Louisiana 

non-resident attachment was inapplicable. 

The district court agreed with TKM and vacated Daewoo’s attachment. 

Specifically, the district court found that because Daewoo’s underlying suit 

sought to compel arbitration, it was not an “action for a money judgment” and 

therefore Daewoo could not receive a non-resident attachment writ. Daewoo 

appeals only the district court’s conclusion that its Louisiana non-resident 

attachment writ was invalid. We VACATE and REMAND.

I 

Daewoo is a South Korean trading company. In May 2012, Daewoo 

entered into a series of contracts with AMT for the purchase of pig iron, to be 

delivered in New Orleans. The sale contracts contained arbitration clauses. 

Although Daewoo made payments under the contracts, AMT never shipped the 

pig iron. TKM is a German company. Between June 2010 and February 2011, 

 Case: 16-30984 Document: 00514141369 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/01/2017
No. 16-30984

3 

TKM entered into six contracts to purchase pig iron from AMT. AMT never 

delivered. In response to the breach of contract, TKM and AMT negotiated a 

settlement, which required AMT to make quarterly payments to TKM. AMT 

did not pay. 

On December 14, 2012, Daewoo filed suit in the Eastern District of 

Louisiana, seeking attachment of AMT’s pig iron on board the M/V Clipper 

Kasashio, and asserting maritime jurisdiction. The district court issued the 

attachment. On December 21, Daewoo amended its complaint to seek a writ 

of attachment under the Louisiana non-resident attachment statute. The writ 

was granted. On December 22, the U.S. Marshals Service served Daewoo’s 

writ on the cargo, which was then anchored in Kenner Bend. 

On December 28, 2012, TKM filed suit in Jefferson Parish state court 

seeking a writ of attachment over the same pig iron that Daewoo attached on 

December 22. TKM’s state court writ of attachment was served on the cargo 

on December 29, 2012. TKM then moved to intervene in Daewoo’s federal suit. 

TKM sought a federal writ of attachment over the pig iron, which was granted 

and served on the cargo on January 11. 

That same day, all of the parties moved in federal court to sell the pig 

iron. The court approved the sale. The parties agreed that the proceeds of the 

sale would serve as substitute res, subject to TKM’s jurisdictional attack on 

the federal attachments. 

On May 9, 2016, TKM moved to vacate Daewoo’s attachment.1 The 

district court agreed with TKM and vacated Daewoo’s writ on August 4, 2016. 

With Daewoo’s federal writ vacated, the first valid remaining writ was TKM’s 

state court writ. Accordingly, the district court ordered that the proceeds from 

 

1 TKM successfully moved to vacate a number of parties’ attachments. Only Daewoo 

appealed.

 Case: 16-30984 Document: 00514141369 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/01/2017
No. 16-30984

4 

the pig-iron sale be transferred to the Jefferson Parish state court. On August 

10, Daewoo moved to stay the district court’s order, arguing that “[i]n the event 

that Daewoo’s appeal is successful it would be difficult to retrieve the funds 

from the state court, assuming the state court has not already dispersed the 

funds, and would create serious issues of federal-state comity.” The district 

court denied the stay request because it was filed after the district court had 

sent the money to the Jefferson Parish state court. 

II 

The district court found federal subject matter jurisdiction under the 

Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards

(the “Convention”). We agree. 

For a federal court to have jurisdiction under the Convention two 

requirements must be met: (1) there must be an arbitration agreement or 

award that falls under the Convention, and (2) the dispute must relate to that 

arbitration agreement. These requirements flow from the text of two sections 

of the Convention. The explicit jurisdictional provision is Section 203, which 

gives federal courts jurisdiction over all “action[s] or proceeding[s] falling 

under the Convention.” 9 U.S.C. § 203. “An arbitration agreement or arbitral 

award arising out of a legal relationship, whether contractual or not, which is 

considered as commercial, including a transaction, contract, or agreement 

described in section 2 of this title, falls under the Convention.” 9 U.S.C. § 202. 

Accordingly, the first step for determining jurisdiction is deciding whether the 

“arbitration agreement or award . . . falls under the Convention.” Id. 

The next step, derived from Section 203, is to ask whether the “action or 

proceeding”—as opposed to the arbitration agreement or award—falls under 

the Convention. The Convention’s removal statute offers guidance on what 

“falling under” means because “[g]enerally, the removal jurisdiction of the 

 Case: 16-30984 Document: 00514141369 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/01/2017
No. 16-30984

5 

federal district courts extends to cases over which they have original 

jurisdiction.” Francisco v. Stolt Achievement MT, 293 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir. 

2002). Section 205 of the Convention allows for removal whenever “the subject 

matter of an action or proceeding pending in a State court relates to an 

arbitration agreement or award falling under the Convention.” 9 U.S.C. § 205. 

We have read “relates to” to mean “has some connection, has some relation, 

[or] has some reference” to. Acosta v. Master Maint. & Constr. Inc., 452 F.3d 

373, 378–79 (5th Cir. 2006). And reading “falling under” to mean “relates to” 

makes sense grammatically. “Fall” means “to come within the limits, scope, or 

jurisdiction of something.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 418 (10th 

ed. 2002). Accordingly, the second step of the jurisdictional question is asking 

whether the “action or proceeding” “relates to” a covered arbitration agreement 

or award. See Fred Parks, Inc. v. Total Compagnie, 981 F.2d 1255, 1992 WL 

386999, at *1–2 (5th Cir. 1992) (unpublished) (treating the question of original 

and removal jurisdiction under the Convention as identical). 

This two-step jurisdictional inquiry is consistent with case law 

interpreting the Convention. See, e.g., BP Expl. Libya Ltd. v. ExxonMobil 

Libya Ltd., 689 F.3d 481, 487 & n.4 (5th Cir. 2012) (finding jurisdiction where 

there was a covered arbitration agreement and the suit sought appointment of 

arbitrators); Borden, Inc. v. Meiji Milk Prods. Co., 919 F.2d 822, 826 (2d Cir. 

1990) (holding that jurisdiction over preliminary injunction in aid of covered 

arbitration was proper because the remedy sought did not try to “bypass 

arbitration”); Sunkyong Eng’g & Const. Co. v. Born, Inc., 149 F.3d 1174, 1998 

WL 413537, at *5 (5th Cir. 1998) (unpublished) (“The FAA grants the United 

States district courts original federal question jurisdiction over arbitral awards 

and agreements to arbitrate that fall within the Convention.”); Venconsul N.V. 

v. Tim Int’l. N.V., 03Civ.5387(LTS)(MHD), 2003 WL 21804833, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. 

Aug. 6, 2003) (“Borden has been interpreted as recognizing a court’s power to 

 Case: 16-30984 Document: 00514141369 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/01/2017
No. 16-30984

6 

entertain requests for provisional remedies in aid of arbitration even where 

the request for remedies does not accompany a motion to compel arbitration or 

to confirm an award.”). 

Both jurisdictional requirements are met here. First, Daewoo’s 

arbitration agreements with AMT are covered by the Convention. For an 

arbitration agreement to be covered by the Convention, four requirements 

must be met: (1) there must be an agreement in writing to arbitrate the 

dispute; (2) the agreement must provide for arbitration in the territory of a 

Convention signatory; (3) the agreement to arbitrate must arise out of a 

commercial legal relationship; and (4) at least one party to the agreement must 

not be an American citizen. See Freudensprung v. Offshore Tech. Servs., Inc., 

379 F.3d 327, 339 (5th Cir. 2004); Sunkyong, 149 F.3d 1174, 1998 WL 413537, 

at *5; Sedco, Inc. v. Petroleos Mexicanos Mexican Nat’l Oil Co. (Pemex), 767 

F.2d 1140, 1144–45 (5th Cir. 1985). All four requirements are met here: 

• There is an agreement in writing to arbitrate Daewoo and AMT’s 

dispute. 

• That agreement provides for arbitration in New York, and the United 

States is a signatory to the Convention. 

• The agreement arises out of a commercial relationship between Daewoo 

and AMT. 

• Both Daewoo and AMT are not American citizens. 

Second, this suit is related to the AMT arbitration agreements because 

Daewoo seeks an attachment to facilitate the arbitration provided for in the 

AMT agreements. See Borden, 919 F.2d at 826 (“[T]he desire for speedy 

decisions in arbitration is entirely consistent with a desire to make as effective 

as possible recovery upon awards, after they have been made, which is what 

provisional remedies do.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 

Our decision in E.A.S.T., Inc. of Stamford v. M/V Alaia, 876 F.2d 1168 (5th

Cir. 1989), strongly counsels towards recognizing subject matter jurisdiction 

 Case: 16-30984 Document: 00514141369 Page: 6 Date Filed: 09/01/2017
No. 16-30984

7 

based on the Convention to issue provisional remedies in aid of arbitration.2 

The court in E.A.S.T., albeit in the context of a maritime attachment, found 

that the “the arrest of a vessel prior to arbitration is not inconsistent with the 

Convention.” Id. at 1173. And the court noted that the Convention “does not

expressly forbid pre-arbitration attachment” and that pre-arbitration 

attachment “may ‘serve[] . . . as a security device in aid of arbitration.’” Id.

(alteration in original) (quoting Atlas Chartering Servs., Inc. v. World Trade 

Grp., Inc., 453 F. Supp. 861, 863 (S.D.N.Y. 1978)). 

Indeed, E.A.S.T.’s reasoning mirrors the reasoning of courts that have 

found subject matter jurisdiction under the Convention to order state-law 

provisional remedies. Like the court in E.A.S.T., those courts reason that 

“nothing in the Convention divests federal courts of jurisdiction to issue 

 

2 At one point at least, there was significant contrary authority on this issue. See, e.g., 

Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc., 175 F.3d 716, 726 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Because the district court 

correctly concluded that all of Simula’s claims were arbitrable and the ICC arbitral tribunal 

is authorized to grant the equivalent of an injunction pendente lite, it would have been 

inappropriate for the district court to grant preliminary injunctive relief.”); I.T.A.D. Assocs., 

Inc. v. Podar Bros., 636 F.2d 75, 77 (4th Cir. 1981) (“[T]he attachment obtained by I.T.A.D. 

and the superseding bond posted by Podar are contrary to the parties’ agreement to arbitrate 

and the Convention[.]”); McCreary Tire & Rubber Co. v. CEAT S.p.A., 501 F.2d 1032, 1038 

(3d Cir. 1974) (finding that the Convention does not allow a court to issue provisional 

remedies). However, it appears that the courts that read jurisdiction under the Convention 

restrictively have retreated from their views and now, at least in most circumstances, 

recognize subject matter jurisdiction to grant provisional remedies in aid of arbitration. See

Aggarao v. MOL Ship Mgmt. Co., 675 F.3d 355, 377 n.19 (4th Cir. 2012) (“Because the 

Supreme Court has rejected the McCreary premise, Podar Bros. has been effectively 

overruled by the Court on the jurisdictional point and is not controlling precedent with 

respect to [the] injunction request [in aid of arbitration].”); Toyo Tire Holdings Of Americas 

Inc. v. Cont’l Tire N. Am., Inc., 609 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2010) (“In contrast to Simula, 

[plaintiff] seeks an injunction to preserve the status quo until the arbitral panel can consider 

and rule upon Toyo’s application for interim relief pending the arbitration panel’s final 

decision. Allowing a district court to grant this type of relief is not contrary to the ‘emphatic 

federal policy in favor of arbitral dispute resolution’ of primary concern in Simula. To the 

contrary, in cases such as this, judicial interim relief may be necessary to preserve the 

meaningfulness of the arbitral process.” (internal citation omitted)); Rhone Mediterranee 

Compagnia Francese Di Assicurazioni E Riassicurazoni v. Lauro, 712 F.2d 50, 55 (3d Cir. 

1983) (allowing district court to maintain jurisdiction pending arbitration).

 Case: 16-30984 Document: 00514141369 Page: 7 Date Filed: 09/01/2017
No. 16-30984

8 

provisional remedies . . . such as an attachment, when appropriate in 

international arbitrations.” Bahrain Telecomms. Co. v. Discoverytel, Inc., 476 

F. Supp. 2d 176, 181 (D. Conn. 2007); see also China Nat’l Metal Prods. 

Imp./Exp. Co. v. Apex Dig., Inc., 155 F. Supp. 2d 1174, 1180 (C.D. Cal. 2001) 

(“Rather than conflicting with the parties’ agreement to arbitrate, provisional 

remedies such as attachment reinforce arbitration agreements by ensuring 

that assets from which an arbitration award would be satisfied are secured 

while arbitration is pending.”). E.A.S.T. therefore strongly suggests that this 

court recognizes jurisdiction under the Convention to issue state-law 

preliminary remedies in aid of arbitration.3 

Applying E.A.S.T. and the cases that follow it, the Convention grants 

jurisdiction over Daewoo’s request for an attachment. Like the plaintiff in 

 

3 And there are compelling reasons against reading jurisdiction under Section 203 as 

narrowly limited to the three remedies expressly allowed by the Convention (compelling 

arbitration and appointing arbitrators in Section 206 and confirming awards in Section 207). 

Namely, 

[n]othing in § 206 or § 207 limits the subject matter jurisdiction 

of federal courts. These sections merely identify the remedies 

that federal courts may grant, and do not speak in jurisdictional 

terms or refer in any way to the jurisdiction of the district courts. 

. . . To grant the remedies provided in those sections, the Court 

must first determine that it has jurisdiction . . . .

Treating §§ 206 and 207 as jurisdictional provisions confuses the 

subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts with their remedial 

authority. Although jurisdiction is a word of many . . . meanings, 

there is a difference between the two. The nature of the relief 

available after jurisdiction attaches is, of course, different from 

the question whether there is jurisdiction to adjudicate the 

controversy . . . . The breadth or narrowness of the relief which 

may be granted under federal law . . . is a distinct question from 

whether the court has jurisdiction over the parties and the 

subject matter. Any error in granting or designing relief does 

not go to the jurisdiction of the court. 

CRT Capital Grp. v. SLS Capital, S.A., 63 F. Supp. 3d 367, 374–75 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (internal 

quotations marks, citations, and alterations omitted). Simply put, the question of what 

remedies are available in a Convention suit is distinct from the question of jurisdiction.

 Case: 16-30984 Document: 00514141369 Page: 8 Date Filed: 09/01/2017
No. 16-30984

9 

E.A.S.T., Daewoo sought to attach the pig iron in order to facilitate arbitration 

and increase its chance of recovering on any award. Because Daewoo sought 

attachment to bring about a covered arbitration—that is, because Daewoo’s 

suit related to a covered arbitration agreement—this court has subject matter 

jurisdiction.4

III 

The parties dispute whether Louisiana’s non-resident attachment 

statute allows for attachment in aid of arbitration. The district court held that 

it does not. With great respect for the district court, and cognizant of the lack 

of instructional case law and limited briefing on this issue below, we decline to 

adopt a categorical approach to this question. Louisiana’s non-resident 

attachment statute allows for attachment in aid of suits to confirm monetary 

arbitration awards. Moreover, because Louisiana law allows for attachment 

in aid of yet-to-be-brought actions, non-resident attachment may be available 

in aid of arbitration when an eventual confirmation suit is contemplated. 

As always, statutory interpretation begins with “the plain language and 

structure of the statute.” Coserv Ltd. Liab. Corp. v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 350 F.3d 

482, 486 (5th Cir. 2003); see also Arabie v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., 89 So. 3d 

307, 312 (La. 2012) (“[A]ccording to the general rules of statutory 

interpretation, our interpretation of any statutory provision begins with the 

language of the statute itself.”). Louisiana’s attachment statute provides that 

“[a] writ of attachment may be obtained in any action for a money judgment, 

whether against a resident or a nonresident, regardless of the nature, 

character, or origin of the claim, whether it is for a certain or uncertain 

 

4 We asked the parties to brief whether this court has personal jurisdiction under 

quasi in rem principles. We are satisfied that we have personal jurisdiction. See Republic 

Nat’l Bank of Miami v. United States, 506 U.S. 80, 88–89 (1992); Nassau Realty Co., Inc. v. 

Brown, 332 So. 2d 206, 210 (La. 1976). 

 Case: 16-30984 Document: 00514141369 Page: 9 Date Filed: 09/01/2017
No. 16-30984

10

amount, and whether it is liquidated or unliquidated.” La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 

3542. A “money judgment” is a “[a] judgment for damages subject to immediate 

execution, as distinguished from equitable or injunctive relief.” Black’s Law 

Dictionary 972 (10th ed. 2014). Accordingly, an “action for a money judgment” 

is a civil or criminal judicial proceeding seeking monetary damages. 

Louisiana case law supports this interpretation. In de Lavergne v. de 

Lavergne, 244 So. 2d 698 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1971), a Louisiana court of appeals 

was asked to decide whether a suit for alimony was an “action for a money 

judgment” within the meaning of Article 3542. The court concluded that it 

was, reasoning: 

A proceeding for alimony is a suit for judgment 

ordering the payment of money just as any other suit 

which has for its object the recovery of money in 

damages or in enforcement of any obligation to pay a 

sum of money whether liquidated or not. The 

difference is that in a judgment ordering the payment 

of a sum of money as alimony or for child support in 

addition to the ordinary remedies available to the 

judgment creditor for execution, there is the additional 

remedy of a contempt proceeding and the imposition of 

a penalty for noncompliance with the court’s order. 

We must reject the argument of appellants that the 

additional remedy makes the action something other 

than one for a money judgment. 

Id. at 704. The de Lavergne court’s analysis aligns with the plain meaning of 

Article 3542. That is, the de Lavergne court first asked whether a suit for 

alimony sought an order compelling the payment of money. Id. Noting, 

however, that an alimony suit allowed for more than just a payment of 

money—because an alimony proceeding allowed “the additional remedy of a 

contempt proceeding and the imposition of a penalty for noncompliance with 

the court’s order”—the court asked whether the additional remedy converted 

alimony into “something other” than an action “for a money judgment.” Id. 

 Case: 16-30984 Document: 00514141369 Page: 10 Date Filed: 09/01/2017
No. 16-30984

11

The court concluded that it did not because the additional contempt remedy 

was intended to make the money judgment more effective. Id. 

And other sections of Louisiana law that refer to money judgments have 

similarly been interpreted to refer to judicial proceedings seeking judgments 

of money damages. See Flowers v. S. Reg’l Physician Servs. Inc., 247 F.3d 229, 

233 n.4 (5th Cir. 2001) (“[A]s a matter of statutory interpretation, in 

determining the meaning of a particular statutory provision, it is helpful to 

consider the interpretation of other statutory provisions that employ the same 

or similar language.”). For example, Civil Code Article 3501 sets forth the 

prescriptive period for “money judgments”: “A money judgment rendered by a 

trial court of this state is prescribed by the lapse of ten years . . . .” Courts 

interpreting Article 3501 have found that orders for “the payment of a sum of 

money” are money judgments, see, e.g., Eikert v. Beebe, 188 So. 3d 1129, 1131 

(La. App. 2d Cir. 2016), but that orders directing a party to take an action are 

not money judgments, see, e.g., Liquidator of Clinton & P.H.R. Co. v. Whitaker, 

22 La. Ann. 209, 209 (1870) (“The judgment directs the liquidator to discharge 

a duty attached to his office. It is not a money judgment.”); Williams v. Perry, 

436 So. 2d 1268, 1269 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1983) (judgment of partition is not a 

money judgment). Courts interpreting Code of Civil Procedure Article 2291 

have similarly defined “money judgment.” Article 2291 provides “[a] judgment 

for the payment of money may be executed by a writ of fieri facias directing the 

seizure and sale of property of the judgment debtor.” The Article has been 

interpreted to distinguish between orders for the payment of money and orders 

directing a party to take an action. See, e.g., Madere v. Madere, 660 So. 2d 

1205, 1205 (La. 1995) (order of partition “did not create” a money judgment); 

Lindy Invs., III, L.P. v. Shakertown Corp., 631 F. Supp. 2d 815, 821 & n.13

(E.D. La. 2008) (suit seeking declaration that condition precedent for payment 

was met was not a suit for money judgment). 

 Case: 16-30984 Document: 00514141369 Page: 11 Date Filed: 09/01/2017
No. 16-30984

12

Based on this definition of “action for a money judgment,” we agree with 

the district court that a suit to compel arbitration (like this suit) is not directly 

an action for a money judgment. A motion to compel arbitration seeks an order 

requiring a party to take an action—namely, to arbitrate the dispute. 

Accordingly, a suit seeking to compel arbitration is not an “action for a money 

judgment,” and Daewoo’s suit seeking to compel arbitration cannot underlie a 

Louisiana non-resident attachment writ. 

However, that Daewoo’s action does not directly seek a money judgment 

does not end the inquiry. Louisiana law provides that, in limited 

circumstances, an attachment may issue before the suit underlying the 

attachment is filed. Article 3502 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure 

provides: 

A writ of attachment . . . may issue before the 

petition[5] is filed, if the plaintiff obtains leave of court 

and furnishes the affidavit and security provided in 

Article 3501. In such a case the petition shall be filed 

on the first judicial day after the issuance of the writ 

of attachment . . . unless for good cause shown the 

court grants a longer delay. 

Article 3502 allows for the possibility of attachments in suits like this one. In 

Louisiana, arbitral awards are convertible into money judgments in 

confirmation proceedings. See, e.g., Matherne v. TWH Holdings, L.L.C., 136 

So. 3d 854, 860 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2013) (“A confirmed arbitration award is 

considered to be a valid and final judgment for purposes of res judicata.”); La. 

Stat. § 9:4212 (“Upon the granting of an order confirming, modifying, or 

correcting an award, judgment may be entered in conformity therewith in the 

court wherein the order was granted.”); La. Stat. § 9:4214 (noting that when 

 

5 A petition is equivalent to a complaint under federal law. See La. Code Civ. Proc. 

art. 891. 

 Case: 16-30984 Document: 00514141369 Page: 12 Date Filed: 09/01/2017
No. 16-30984

13

an award is converted to a judgment, “[t]he judgment so entered shall have the 

same force and effect, in all respects, as, and be subject to all the provisions of 

law relating to, a judgment in an action, and it may be enforced as if it had 

been rendered in an action in the court in which it is entered”). Thus, as TKM’s 

counsel conceded, an action to confirm a money award is an action for a money 

judgment. And because a confirmation suit can be an action for a money 

judgment, Section 3502 allows for attachments to be issued before the 

contemplated underlying confirmation suit is brought.6 

Put into context, Section 3502 allows for attachments to issue in aid of 

arbitration so long as the party seeking the attachment (1) complies with the 

requirements of Section 3502 and (2) shows good cause for a pre-petition 

attachment, which will usually require showing that arbitration is likely to 

result in a confirmation suit and also showing a need for an immediate 

attachment (which may include an inquiry into the imminence of the 

arbitration or confirmation suit). 

Thus, the critical question is not whether Daewoo’s suit to compel 

arbitration is an action for a money judgment (it is not); instead, we must 

 

6 Reading Louisiana law to allow for pre-suit attachment in aid of arbitration makes 

sense of the statutory scheme as a whole because other provisions of Louisiana law assume 

that some state-law preliminary remedies are available to aid arbitration. Louisiana has 

adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on interim measures in arbitration, which provides, “[i]t 

is not incompatible with an arbitration agreement for a party to request, before or during 

arbitral proceedings, from a court an interim measure of protection and for a court to grant 

the measure.” La. Stat. § 9:4249. Moreover, the UNCITRAL Model Law indicates that 

attachment is one of the interim remedies that may aid an arbitration. It would be strange 

for Louisiana to have adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law without allowing for state law 

interim remedies in aid of arbitration. See Food & Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson 

Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 121 (2000) (“In determining whether Congress has specifically 

addressed the question at issue, the court should not confine itself to examining a particular 

statutory provision in isolation. Rather, it must place the provision in context, interpreting 

the statute to create a symmetrical and coherent regulatory scheme.”); Green v. La. 

Underwriters Ins. Co., 571 So. 2d 610, 616 (La. 1990) (“If two statutes can be reconciled by a 

fair and reasonable interpretation, we must read the statutes so as to give effect to each.”).

 Case: 16-30984 Document: 00514141369 Page: 13 Date Filed: 09/01/2017
No. 16-30984

14

further ask (1) whether Daewoo followed the requirements of Section 3502 to 

seek an attachment in aid of its yet to be filed confirmation suit and (2) whether 

Daewoo’s confirmation suit would be an action for a money judgment. First, 

TKM’s counsel conceded at oral argument that Daewoo followed the procedural 

requirements of Section 3502. And TKM does not argue that Daewoo failed to 

follow any Section 3502 conditions imposed by the district court (for example, 

by filing its follow-on confirmation proceeding too late). Second, from the 

outset, Daewoo was clear that it would be pursuing a money award in 

arbitration and that it needed a pre-confirmation suit attachment to secure

any eventual arbitral award because AMT was hemorrhaging assets. That is, 

Daewoo consistently maintained that it needed an attachment so that it could 

return to Louisiana and collect on its successful arbitration award. 

Accordingly, because Section 3502 allows Daewoo to seek a Section 3542 

attachment before commencing its confirmation proceeding, and Daewoo 

followed Section 3502’s requirements, Daewoo’s attachment was valid. We 

therefore VACATE the district court’s order dissolving Daewoo’s attachment 

and REMAND for any necessary further proceedings consistent with this 

opinion. 

 Case: 16-30984 Document: 00514141369 Page: 14 Date Filed: 09/01/2017
No. 16-30984

15

JAMES E. GRAVES, JR., Circuit Judge, specially concurring: 

I write separately because I would conclude that the underlying action 

seeking to compel arbitration here is clearly an “action for a money judgment” 

under Louisiana’s non-resident attachment statute. See La. Code Civ. Proc. 

art. 3542. As the majority acknowledges, Daewoo has made it clear from the 

outset that it would be pursuing a money judgment. The “nature, character, 

or origin of the claim” just happens to be arbitration. La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 

3542. Nevertheless, I concur with the conclusion ultimately reached by the 

majority. 

 Case: 16-30984 Document: 00514141369 Page: 15 Date Filed: 09/01/2017