Opinion ID: 454832
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the judgment in rem

Text: 9 The district court entered judgment in rem against the M/V GLORIA. Because we find that the district court did not have the power to exercise jurisdiction over the vessel we vacate that judgment. 10 The appellees' complaints stated claims for cargo damage against the vessel. At the bottom of the complaints, however, appellees directed as follows: Please withhold service in rem until further notice from attorneys for plaintiffs. The record discloses that no such further notice was given, that no in rem process was ever issued, that the vessel was not arrested, and that no answer was filed on behalf of the GLORIA. Further, the record does not disclose any waiver of attachment by Aquarius. In these circumstances, the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment against the vessel in rem. Cactus Pipe & Supply Co., Inc. v. M/V MONTMARTRE, 756 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir.1985); Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. v. SS PORTORIA, 484 F.2d 460, 461-62 (5th Cir.1973); Compagnie De Navigation Fraissinet & Cyprien Fabre, S.A. v. Mondial United Corp., 316 F.2d 163, 168 n. 2 (5th Cir.1963).