Opinion ID: 2505
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Maritime Attachments Generally

Text: The power to grant attachments in admiralty is an inherent component of the admiralty jurisdiction given to the federal courts under Article III of the Constitution. Id. at 437. Thus, `[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.' Winter Storm, 310 F.3d at 267-68 (quoting Aurora Maritime Co. v. Abdullah Mohamed Fahem & Co., 85 F.3d 44, 47 (2d Cir.1996)). The historical purpose of maritime attachment is first, to gain jurisdiction over an absent defendant; and second, to assure satisfaction of a judgment. Aqua Stoli, 460 F.3d at 437. The first uniform federal rules for admiralty and maritime proceedings (Admiralty Rules) were promulgated by the Supreme Court in 1844. A revised version of the Admiralty Rules was released in 1920. In 1966, under the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2073, the Supreme Court established the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims, 383 U.S. 1071 (1966), a reformed and comprehensive codification of admiralty rules to govern the practice of the federal courts. Aqua Stoli, 460 F.3d at 438. The Supplemental Rules have since been amended periodically; the 1985 amendments are particularly relevant to the availability of maritime attachments. Rule B governs the process by which a party may obtain an ex parte order of maritime attachment. In relevant part, it provides: If a defendant is not found within the district ..., a verified complaint may contain a prayer for process to attach the defendant's tangible or intangible personal propertyup to the amount sued forin the hands of garnishees named in the process. ... The court must review the complaint and affidavit and, if the conditions of this Rule B appear to exist, enter an order so stating and authorizing process of attachment and garnishment. Fed.R.Civ.P. Supp. Rule B(1). Once property has been restrained pursuant to an order of maritime attachment, Rule E(4)(f) provides a mechanism by which a person claiming an interest in attached property may seek to have the property released. Rule E(4)(f) states, in relevant part: Whenever property is arrested or attached, any person claiming an interest in it shall be entitled to a prompt hearing at which the plaintiff shall be required to show why the arrest or attachment should not be vacated or other relief granted consistent with these rules. Fed. R.Civ.P. Supp. Rule E(4)(f). Under Rule E(5), property restrained pursuant to an order of maritime attachment may be released on the giving of security. Specifically, Rule E(5) provides: Whenever process of maritime attachment... is issued the execution of such process shall be stayed, or the property released, on the giving of security. ... [T]he court shall fix the principal sum of the bond or stipulation at an amount sufficient to cover the amount of the plaintiff's claim fairly stated with accrued interest and costs; but the principal sum shall in no event exceed (i) twice the amount of the plaintiff's claim or (ii) the value of the property on due appraisement, whichever is smaller. Fed.R.Civ.P. Supp. Rule E(5)(a) (emphasis added); see also infra note 5. If security is taken by the court in lieu of attached property, Rule E(6) maintains that the court may, on motion and hearing, for good cause shown, reduce the amount of security given. Fed.R.Civ.P. Supp. Rule E(6) (emphasis added). Finally, a statutory provision also provides for the release of arrested or attached property on payment of a security. Section 2464 of Title 28 of the United States Code allows: [W]henever a warrant of arrest or other process in rem is issued in any admiralty case, the United States marshal shall stay the execution of such process, or discharge the property arrested if the process has been levied, on receiving from the respondent or claimant of the property a bond or stipulation in double the amount claimed by the libellant, with sufficient surety, to be approved by the judge of the district court where the case is pending. ... 28 U.S.C. § 2464(a) (emphasis added). [1] Although none of the foregoing provisions provide for a motion to reduce an attachment, the relief sought by FHT's motion is identical in substance to a motion to set a security for the release of the attached property or to reduce the security. Thus, we view the district court's decision to reduce the amount of the attachment in this case as being governed by Rule E(5), Rule E(6) and § 2464.