Opinion ID: 779793
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The History and Characteristics of Maritime Attachment

Text: 21 Maritime attachment is centuries old. The use of the process of attachment in civil causes of maritime jurisdiction by courts of admiralty ... has prevailed during a period extending as far back as the authentic history of those tribunals can be traced. Atkins v. Fibre Disintegrating Co., 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 272, 303, 21 L.Ed. 841 (1873). As early as 1825, the Supreme Court was able to say of the right of attachment in in personam admiralty cases that [t]his Court has entertained such suits too often, without hesitation, to permit the right now to be questioned. Manro v. Almeida, 23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 473, 486, 6 L.Ed. 369 (1825). [M]aritime attachment is a feature of admiralty jurisprudence that antedates both the congressional grant of admiralty jurisdiction to the federal district courts and the promulgation of the first Supreme Court Admiralty Rules in 1844. Aurora Maritime Co. v. Abdullah Mohamed Fahem & Co., 85 F.3d 44, 47 (2d Cir.1996). Admiralty Rule B, quoted in part supra, contains the current provisions governing maritime attachment. 2 Rule B is simply an extension of this ancient practice. Aurora, 85 F.3d at 47-48. A Rule B attachment is available only if the defendant is not found within the district. As developed by the courts, a defendant will be considered `found within the district' in which the plaintiff brings its action if the defendant has sufficient contacts with the district to meet minimum due process standards and can be served with process in the district. Robert M. Jarvis, An Introduction to Maritime Attachment Practice Under Rule B, 20 Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, No 4 (October 1989) at 521 (hereinafter Jarvis). 22 The rationale underlying maritime attachment is twofold. First, attachment provides a means to assure satisfaction if a suit is successful; the second purpose is to insure a defendant's appearance in an action, an aspect of attachment inextricably linked to a plaintiff's substantive right to recover. Aurora, 85 F.3d at 48 (internal citations omitted). See also Manro v. Almeida, 23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) at 489. The jurisdiction conferred by a maritime attachment is characterized as quasi in rem. See Amoco Overseas Oil Co. v. Compagnie Nationale Algerienne de Navigation, 605 F.2d 648, 654 (2d Cir.1979). 23 Maritime attachment is available whenever the plaintiff has an in personam claim against the defendant which is cognizable in admiralty.... In other words, the plaintiff's claim must be one which will support a finding of admiralty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333. Jarvis, at 526 & n. 20. 24 The property attached need not have a direct connection to the claim sued upon, since Rule B(1)(a), broadly phrased, allows attachment of the defendant's tangible or intangible personal property, limited only by the amount sued for. The case at bar is illustrative; TPI's funds attached by Winter Storm in the hands of BNY were generated by a transaction bearing no relationship to the charter party underlying Winter Storm's claim.