09 -49 56 -cv

Chin a Na tion al Chartering Corp. v. P actrans A ir & Sea , Inc.



### UNITED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE SE CON D C IRCU IT

SUM M AR

Y O RD ER

RU LIN G S BY SUM M AR Y ORD ER DO NO T HAV E PREC ED EN TIA L EF F EC T. C ITA TIO N T O A SUM M AR

Y O RD ER

F ILED ON OR

AF TER JA NU AR

Y 1 , 200 7, IS P ER M ITTE D A ND IS G OV ERNE D B Y T HIS C OU RT ’S LOC AL RU LE 3 2. 1. 1 A ND F ED ER AL RU LE OF AP P ELLA TE P RO CE DU RE 32 .1 . W HEN CI TIN G A SUM M AR Y ORD ER IN A D OC UM EN T F ILED WI TH TH IS CO UR T, AP AR TY M UST CI TE E IT HER THE F ED ER

AL AP P EN DI X O R A N E LEC TR ON IC DATABASE (W I T H T HE NOTAT ION “SUMMAR Y ORDER”). A P ARTY CITINGA SUMMA RY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPYOF IT ON ANY P ARTY NOT REP RESENT ED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated Te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pear l Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 19 day

of January , two thousand eleve n. th

Pr e se nt: RA L PH K . WI NT ER, RO SEM AR

Y S. POO L ER, P E T E R W

. H A LL, Circuit Judges

.

_____________________________________________________ CHI NA NAT I ONAL

CHARTERI

NG CORP., Plaintif f-Appellee , -v.- 09-4956-c v
PACTRANS AI R & SEA, I NC., Defendant- Third-Party-Plaintiff -Counter-De

fendant-Appellant , DEVON SAFETY PRODUCTS, I NC., Third-Party-Defe ndant-Counter-Claimant , SUPP L Y MARKETI

NG CORP., Third-Party-Defe ndant

.

For Appellant: Bill Xian F engZ ou, L aw Of fice s of Xian F engZ ou, Flushing , NY.

F o r A p p e l l e e : P a t r i c k F

. L e n n o nan d

C h a r l e s E

. M u r

p h y ( on the brief

), L ennon Murphy Caulfield, L L C, New Yor k, NY.2

Appea l from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ne w York ( Kaplan, J. ).

ON CO NSI DERATION WHE RE OF , IT I S HEREBY OR DE RE D , AD JU DG ED , AND DE CREED that th e c a se be and he re by is RE M AN DE D to the district court.

Pactra ns Air & Sea, Inc. (“ Pactr an s ”) a ppeals fr om a Novembe r 16, 2009 judg ment rec og nizi ng , confirming , and enf orcinga for eig n arbitration awar d ag ainst Pactrans of $543,814.74 plus interest and fe es. Pactra ns argues that t h e d i s trict court lac ked per sonal jurisdiction over Pactra ns. We assume the par

ties’ famili arity with the under ly ing f acts, proc edura l history , and issues pr e se nte d o n a

pp e a l.

I n its co mpl a int , Chin a Natio na l Ch art e ri ngCor p. (“ CN CC” ) r e qu e ste d a

n o rd e r o f m ari tim e attachme nt pursuant to Rule B of the Supplemental Rules for Admira lty or Maritim e C laims of the Fe dera l Rules of Civil Procedur e. CNCC relied on W inter Storm Shipping, L td. v. TPI , 310 F.3d 263 (2d Cir. 2002), which he ld that electr onic fund tra nsfer s (“EF Ts”) – momentary elec tronic passa g es of fu nd s f ro m on e ba

nk a c c ount t o a

n i nt erme dia

ry ba nk to a no the r a c c ount –

we re a tta c ha

ble pr o p e rty s u f

f ic ie n t f o r p e r s o n a l ju

r is d ic ti o n in th e d is tr ic t in w h ic h th e in te r me d ia r y b ank was located. Id. at 278. CNCC alleg ed that Pactr ans “c an n o t be found w ithin thi s District within the
me anin g of

Rul e B of

the Sup ple me nta l Ru le s” bu t ha s “ or wi ll have ” a sse ts w ith in t he Di str ic t in the hands of va

rious banks. Counsel fo r C NC C s u b mitted a sworn af fidavit stating that “I

have attempted to locate the Def endant, Pac trans Air & Sea Inc., within this District. . . . I submit t hat the Def endant c annot be f

ound within this District within the meaning of R u l e B. ” The district court g rante d CNCC’s request, and CNCC succe ssfully attache d $658,104.40 in EFTs.

I n J uly 2009, having rec eived a

fore ign a rbitration awa

rd of $543,814.74, CNCC petitioned the district court for

rec og nition, confirmation, and enf orce ment of the a

rbitration awa

rd.
On Octobe r 16, 2009, this Court overruled W int e r S tor m ’s holding that EF Ts proce ssed at an int erme diary bank we re de fenda nt’s attacha

ble prope rty

under Rule B

. Sh ipp ing Cor p. of I nd ia Ltd. v. Jaldhi Overse as Pte Ltd. , 585 F.3d 58, 72 ( 2d Cir. 2009). Thre e day s later, Pac trans filed a motion to vacate the ma

ritime attachme nt based on the Court’s de cision in Jaldhi

. Be fore deciding Pactra

ns’s motion to vacate t he attachment, t he dis trict court, on Nove mber 13, 2009, g rante d CNCC’s petiti on to rec og nize, confirm, and e nforc e the f oreig n arbitration awar d. The district cour

t did not specify the g rounds for the court’s pe rsonal jurisdiction over Pac trans. On November

16, 2009, the district c ourt enter ed judgme nt a g ainst Pactrans. O n November 19, 2009, Pactra ns fil ed a m o t i on reque sting, inter a lia, that the district court (1) rec onsider or a llow
rea rg ument on CNCC’s petiti on to rec og nize, confirm, a nd enfor ce the fore ign a

rbitration awa

rd; (2) deny such petit ion for lack of jurisdi ction; and (3) va cate the judg ment. The district cour t set oral argument on the motion for Dec ember 7, 2009. On November 23, 2009, the district court va cate d the maritime attac hment, in light of this Court’s decision in Jaldhi

.I n an orde r date d Dec ember 10, 2009, the district court noted that Pactrans ha d filed, and * later w ithdrawn, a

motion for an orde r that CNCC show ca use why the ac tion should not be dis mis se d f

or la c k o f p e rs on a l juri sd ic tio n. As we un de rs tand that ord e r, the dis tr ic t court e xpre ssl y ref used to dec i d e both the question of pe rsonal jurisdiction and whe ther Pac trans had w aived that question, and also stated that it did not c onsider itself to have de cided those que stions earlier. T he district court’s re fusal to ac t likely was a ppropriate , espec ially as it may have la cked jur isdiction over the ca se at that time, g iven that there wer e no pending post-judgme nt motions and a timely notice of appeal had been filed, divesting the district court of jurisdiction. See M otorola Cr edit Corp. v. Uzan , 388 F.3d 39, 53 ( 2d Cir. 2004). I f in fac t the distri ct co u rt d o es not consider itself to have decide d t h es e questions previously , we a sk it to do so i n the first instance , as we did in Hawknet

. See 590 F.3d at 92-93.
3 On Novembe r 30, 2009, four t ee n d ay s after

judgme nt was ente red, Pac trans appe aled,
ar gu i n g t h at t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt l ac k edp er s o n al j u ri s d i ct i o no v er i tan d e r r e d i nre co gn i z i n g, co n fi rm i ng , and enf

orcingthe ar

bitration awa

rd. On De cembe r 3, 2009, the pa rties conduc ted a he ari ngby

te le c on fe re nc e wi th thi s Court re g ard ing bo nd pe nd inga pp e a l. D ur ingthe he ari ng , th is Court refe renc ed Pactr ans’s Nove mber 19, 2009 mot ion pending befor e the district cour t and aske d,

“ A r e y o ua

p p e a l i n g a

f i n a l j u d g m e n t o r ar e y o u l o o k i n g f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o ni nt h e D i s t r i c tC o u rt ?” Afte r failing to rea ch ag ree ment with CNCC to consent to Pactra ns’s withdrawa l of that motion, Pactra ns withdrew the motion on Dec ember 7, 2009, and continued its appe al in this Court.

I n light of this Court’s holding s in Jaldhi and Hawknet, L td. v. Ove rseas Shipping Agencies , 5 9 0 F

. 3 d 8 7 , 9 1 (2 d

C i r. 2 0 0 9 ) ( ap p l y i n g Jaldhi retroa ctively to case s open on direc t review ), the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s mari tim e a tta c hme nt c ou ld n ot h a ve pr ov ide d p e rs on a l juri sd ic tio n o ve r P a c tr a ns

. CNCC agr ees a

nd asks that we a ffirm on a lternative gr ounds – that Pactra ns waived a

ny objection to persona l jurisdiction by its actions i n this case . We decline to do so. In Hawknet , this Court st ated that althoug h the def

endant did not object to per sonal jurisdiction before the dist ri ct court, the “def endant did not waive its rig ht to object to the District Court’s lac k of per sonal jurisdiction.” 590 F.3d at 92. The def

endant in Hawknet defe nded itself hear tily befor e the district c ourt , fi ling multipl e motions to vacate the district c ourt’s attachme nt of its EF Ts, answeri n g t h e plainti ff’ s complaint, and filing n u m er o u s memoranda of law a nd decla rations. Not only

did the Hawknet Court not find th at t h e d ef endant ha d waived its per sonal jurisdiction objection, it stated that “we find it unlikely

that [t he plaintiff] can establish that the District Court has per sonal jurisdiction over TOM,” id. , g iven t he earlier Rule B attachme nt, which re quired a finding that the “de fenda nt is not found within the district,” F ed. R. Civ. P. S upp. R. B(1) (a)

. L ikewise, in this case , CNCC’s counsel submitt ed a s worn affidavit stating that Pactra ns “ca nnot be found within this District within the meaning of Rule B” and the district cour t ordere d Rule B attachment. Howe ver, a s in Hawknet , w e b e l i e v e t h a t C N C C s h o u l d h a v e ano p p o rtu n i t y, in the chang ed leg al landsca pe, to a ssert that the district court ha s a basis for persona l jurisdiction
ov e r P a c tr ans

. There fore , we REMAND purs ua nt t o th e pr oc e dure ou tli ne d in United States v. J

acobson , 15 F.3d 19, 22 ( 2d Cir. 1994), for t h e d i s t ri ct cour t to determine whe ther it dec ided the per sonal jur isd ic tio n is su e be fo re it e nte re d jud g me nt, and if no t, to e nte r a n o rd e r t o s ho w c a

us e wh y it s ho uld not dismi ss the complaint for lack of persona l jur isdiction. The parties are to inform the Clerk of *4

the C ourt b y

le tt e r w it h in f o u rte e nd ay s o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’ s d e c is io no nr e ma n d if e it h e r s ide wishes t o continue this appea l. Following such notification, jurisdiction over this appe al will be
a uto ma tic a lly

re sto re d to thi s Co ur

t w ith ou t th e ne e d f

or e ith e r p art

y to f ile a ne w not ic e of

a pp e a l. After jurisdiction is restored, this panel will resume consideration of the ca se.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk