Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/321207323/Vitol-S-A-v-Capri-Marine-Ltd-4th-Cir-2013
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 10:46:32+00:00

Document:
VITOL v. PRIMEROSE SHIPPING CO.
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge.
Before MOTZ, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Agee wrote the opinion, in which Judge Motz and Judge Thacker joined.
MAHAR, New York, New York, for Appellant. Patrick F.
SHRIVER, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
district court against Spartacus Navigation Corp.
("Primerose") (collectively "S&P") seeking to "pierce the corporate veil" and enforce a judgment against S&P it had previously obtained against Capri Marine, Ltd. ("Capri Marine").
below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Marine and chartered by Vitol at the time of the Oil Spill.
alleging that Capri Marine breached certain warrantees of seaworthiness resulting in the Oil Spill and resulting damages.
("Aurora") for approximately $2 million.
proceedings, and are not parties to this appeal.
not be found in the District of Maryland. See Fed. R. Civ. P. Adm. Supp.
Primerose as a part of the Primerose fleet.
therefore the district court lacked jurisdiction over the proceedings.
Amended Verified Complaint contains the allegations relevant to this appeal.
THOR from attachment. Rather, the THOR Substitute Collateral was provided by Primerose.
Spartacus are alter egos of Gerassimos." (J.A. 1569).
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291.
address the jurisdictional matter first, as we must verify jurisdiction in order to proceed. See Sucampo Pharms., Inc. v.
347 n.1 (4th Cir. 2008).
hold the district court did not err in its determination of jurisdiction.
courts admiralty jurisdiction under 1333.
[C]ourt of Admiralty of another.").
("[A]n admiralty court has jurisdiction to enforce any judgment of another admiralty court . . . .").
Judgment. Second, in any event, the English Judgment, having been reduced to a judgment debt, is now merely a monetary award that itself lacks any maritime character.
can exist in the case at bar. We do not agree.
claims such as Vitols which involve issues of unseaworthiness to be brought in and heard by the Commercial Court."
way as it actually was." (Id.).
both have the jurisdiction and expertise to hear." (J.A. 360).
with respect to the English Judgment." (J.A. 991-92).
F.2d 482 (5th Cir. 1978) is instructive on this issue.
monetary damages to the plaintiff on a claim for collision."
566 F.2d at 483. In finding the district court possessed jurisdiction, the Fifth Circuit looked to The Centurion, 5 F. Cas.
present in a subsequent proceeding to enforce that judgment.
admiralty jurisdiction over Vitols action.
mechanism used by parties in admiralty cases to secure jurisdiction over an absent party and to obtain security for potential judgment where the absent partys assets are transitory."
in the case at bar and we find its rationale persuasive.
to a long line of precedent in admiralty cases.
of garnishees named in the process.
that Supplemental Rule B must be strictly construed as a prejudgment remedy, does not appear in the text of the rule.
attachment process that aids in our analysis of S&Ps argument.
Supreme Court Admiralty Rules in 1844. Aurora Mar. Co. v.
Abdullah Mohamed Fahem & Co., 85 F.3d 44, 47 (2d Cir.1996).
Vitol has unquestionably complied with both requirements.
assert that any of those limited circumstances are present here.
did not on its face bar the THORs attachment.
garnish judgment debtors proceeds in district); Good Challenger Navagante S.A. v. Metalexportimport S.A., No. 06-cv1847 (KMK), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97920, at *1 (S.D.N.Y.
to enforce foreign arbitration award).
on that judgment. We believe, however, that "pre-judgment,"
GMBH v. Project Asia Line, Inc., 160 F.3d 170, 174 (4th Cir.
judgment can Vitol proceed to enforce the English Judgment.
the district courts power to attach assets: an "inherent component of the admiralty jurisdiction given to the federal courts."
judgment collection device." Id. 2008 WL 650391, at *2.
here on what decision would be required should those events occur.
Transp. N.V., 572 F.3d 96, 103 (2d Cir. 2009).
of the THOR was a misuse of Supplemental Rule B.
the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atl.
which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response."
to frame a responsive pleading." (emphasis added).
vacated or other relief granted consistent with these rules."
Fed. R. Civ. P. Adm. Supp. R. E(4)(f) (emphasis added).
complaint is not a Rule E remedy. See Chiquita Intl Ltd. v.
does not provide for dismissal.").
S&P. Oral Argument Audio Recording at 33:30.7 This argument fails as a matter of law.
over the person survives a change in circumstances." Id. at 88.
Bank, 506 U.S. at 87 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
the district court as to the Amended Verified Complaint.
with legal conclusions underlying the order reviewed de novo.
rules in that way and neither do we.
960, 966 (9th Cir. 2010); Shipping Corp. of India Ltd. v.
Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd., 585 F.3d 58, 66 (2d Cir. 2009).
investigation of the facts and to frame a responsive pleading."
why continued attachment is proper is the plaintiffs to bear.
Berhad, 591 F.3d 1208, 1210 (9th Cir. 2010).
pleading burden under either standard.
defendant of the incident in dispute and afford a reasonable belief that the claim has merit.
United States v. Mondragon, 313 F.3d 862, 865 (4th Cir.
standard of probable cause. See, e.g., Amstar Corp.
v. S/S ALEXANDROS T., 664 F.2d 904, 912 (4th Cir.
Amendment and reasonable grounds . . . are substantial equivalents of the same meaning." Draper v.
holding that it is likely" that alleged facts are true.
1999 WL 33116416, at *3.
explain, however, that "Rule E(2)(a) needs little interpretation. It is plainly written and means precisely what it says."
discuss in detail below, faithfully applied that requirement.
Mondragon was decided in the context of a civil forfeiture claim.
Co. v. Spivey Marine and Harbor Service Co., 598 F. Supp. 909 (S.D. Ill.
1984), an admiralty in rem case.
dismiss for failure to state a claim. McCorkle v. Bank of Am.
articulate facts, when accepted as true, that "show"
relief, i.e., the "plausibility of entitlement to relief."
Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009).
ego." Ost-West-Handel, 160 F.3d at 174 (citing Swift & Co.
parent corporation and its subsidiary as a single entity." Corrigan v. U.S. Steel Corp., 478 F.3d 718, 724 (6th Cir. 2007).
stockholder, and injustice or fundamental unfairness." Id.
arms length. See Arctic Ocean, 622 F. Supp. 2d at 53.
is imposed when doing so would achieve an equitable result."
ness address of its own as "it shared Starladys address." (J.A.
Oil Spill. It thus had little chance of repaying the Trade Maritime loan on its own.
including repayment of the loan made by Trade Maritime.
Marine as the alter ego of Gerassimos.
dismissal and vacatur that Gerassimos is the alter ego of S&P.
is clear that S&P could not, without moving for a more definite statement, "frame a responsive pleading." See Fed. R.
alter egos of Gerassimos or his related entities.
shared office space on its own is sufficient to compel a conclusion that Starlady and/or Gerassimos dominated and controlled Primerose.
dominated or controlled by Gerassimos.
veil. See Arctic Ocean, 622 F. Supp. 2d at 53.
$120,000 deposited by Starlady into its account at Laiki Bank.
because he "had no prior experience in ship management."
"cautious[ ]" when deciding to pierce the corporate veil. Keffer, 872 F.2d at 64.
its burden to show why the attachment of the THOR Substitute Collateral should not be vacated as the district court held.
and directing certain loan-related documents to be sent to his attention.
concerning fleet coloration and shared office space, are literally "factual" allegations entitled to a presumption of truth.
true. See Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir.
not give rise to a plausible allegation of alter ego.
a claim for alter ego status.
of which were not repaid.
was properly attributable to a dividend distribution.
To the extent that these facts show a close business relationship, that allegation falls short of establishing alter ego.
between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief."
and we need not address it further.
secure the release of the THOR in the instant litigation.
the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has allegedbut it has not shownthat the pleader is entitled to relief."
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the Amended Verified Complaint.
properly exercised admiralty jurisdiction over Vitols claims.
judgment of the district court.

References: v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 

v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.