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

Heading: Issuing and Vacating Maritime Attachments

Text: This Court defined the modern standard for the issuance and vacatur of maritime attachments under Rule B and Rule E(4)(f) in Aqua Stoli. In the years immediately prior to that decision, district courts had taken a variety of approaches to the Rule E(4)(f) hearing. Some ... vacated only those attachments that failed to comply with Rule B. Others ... followed a needs test, requiring the plaintiff to show that, even if the [requirements of Rule B had been met], the attachment [wa]s necessary to obtain jurisdiction over a defendant or to secure a potential judgment. Aqua Stoli, 460 F.3d at 446 (footnote omitted). And the district court in Aqua Stoli had held that an attachment may be vacated if the defendant shows that the plaintiff sought the attachment to obtain a tactical advantage over the defendant or that the hardship to the defendant caused by the attachment outweighs the benefit to the plaintiff. Id. at 439. Thus, the question presented in Aqua Stoli was to what extent the district court may require a showing by the plaintiff beyond the simple fact that the textual requirements of Rule B have been met. Id. at 438. Our analysis of this question began with the text of Rule E(4)(f). Because the text of the rule does not explain under what circumstances the district court should vacate the attachment, id., we considered the intent of the drafters of Rule E(4)(f), the historical purpose of maritime attachment, and the historical practice of admiralty courts. After reviewing the historical practice and purpose of maritime attachments, [w]e h[e]ld that, once a plaintiff has carried his burden to show that his attachment satisfies the requirements of Supplemental Rule B, a district court may vacate an attachment only upon [limited] circumstances not present in this case. Id. at 436. Under the Admiralty Rules of 1844 and 1920 and the version of Rule B promulgated by the Supreme Court in 1966, a plaintiff could obtain process of maritime attachment ex parte from the clerk of the district court, without the participation of a judge, Winter Storm, 310 F.3d at 269, and the defendant had no clear right to contest an attachment, Aqua Stoli, 460 F.3d at 440. In 1985, the Supplemental Rules were amended to address concerns that the prior practices were not consistent with the principles of due process. Id. at 440; Fed. R.Civ.P. Supp. Rule E, advisory committee's note (1985 amendment) (Rule E(4)(f) was designed to satisfy the constitutional requirement of due process by guaranteeing to the shipowner a prompt post-seizure hearing at which he can attack the complaint, the arrest, the security demanded, or any other alleged deficiency in the proceedings). Thus, [w]hile the practice of granting maritime attachments on an ex parte basis remains, Rule B(1) now requires the plaintiff to appear before a judge to procure an attachment. Winter Storm, 310 F.3d at 271-72. And Rule E(4)(f) was added to provide a prompt post-seizure hearing at which the defendant could contest the validity of the seizure. Aqua Stoli, 460 F.3d at 440. The Advisory Committee's notes on the amendments explain that Rule E(4)(f) is based ... on local admiralty rules in the Eastern, Northern, and Southern Districts of New York, Fed.R.Civ.P. Supp. Rule E, advisory committee's note (1985 amendment), which had provided a hearing at which a defendant could contest an attachment, see, e.g., E.D.N.Y. & S.D.N.Y. R. for Adm. & Mar. Cls. 12 (1984), cited in Aqua Stoli, 460 F.3d at 440. But while it is indisputable that the Rule E(4)(f) hearing was based on the hearing provided by Local Rule 12, it is unclear whether the Supreme Court meant to adopt the vacatur standardsrather than simply the hearingof former Local Rule 12. Aqua Stoli, 460 F.3d at 444; see id. at 440 (The Advisory Committee's notes ... nowhere intimate that the Court was also adopting the standards for vacatur that the Eastern and Southern Districts then practiced.). Thus, in Aqua Stoli, we rejected an argument that the 1985 amendment to Rule E(4)(f) was intended to adopt the standard for vacatur that the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York applied at a hearing under Local Rule 12. Nonetheless, we considered cases applying Local Rule 12 for their persuasive value. Id. Our review of cases applying Local Rule 12 indicated that the local practice did not countenance a broad degree of equitable discretion in vacating maritime attachments. Id. at 440. Often, the determinative question at the Local Rule 12 hearing was whether the textual requirements of the attachment rule were met. Id. at 442. We observed that the narrow standard for vacatur applied under Local Rule 12 served the time-honored policies embedded in Supplemental Rule B and the historical purposes of maritime attachments. Id. at 444. [T]he traditional policy underlying maritime attachment has been to permit the attachments of assets wherever they can be found and not to require the plaintiff to scour the globe to find a proper forum for suit or property of the defendant sufficient to satisfy a judgment. Id. at 443. This policy, we explained, has been implemented by a relatively broad maritime attachment rule, under which the attachment is quite easily obtained. Id. With this purpose in mind, we concluded that Congress chose a determinate rule [regarding the availability of attachment] rather than a flexible standard to ensure that attachments may be obtained with a minimum of litigation. Id. Ultimately, we held that a plaintiff can obtain an ex parte order of attachment of a defendant's assets if, in addition to [meeting] filing and service requirements of Rules B and E, the plaintiff shows that 1) it has a valid prima facie admiralty claim against the defendant; 2) the defendant cannot be found within the district; 3) the defendant's property may be found within the district; and 4) there is no statutory or maritime law bar to the attachment. [2] Id. at 445 (footnote omitted). Once a defendant's property has been attached, the defendant can move to vacate the attachment under Rule E(4)(f). And a district court must vacate an attachment if the plaintiff fails to sustain his burden of showing that he has satisfied the requirements of Rules B and E. Id. We suggested, in dicta, that a district court may vacate the attachment if the defendant shows at the Rule E[ (4)(f) ] hearing that 1) the defendant is subject to suit in a convenient adjacent jurisdiction; 2) the plaintiff could obtain in personam jurisdiction over the defendant in the district where the plaintiff is located; or 3) the plaintiff has already obtained sufficient security for the potential judgment, by attachment or otherwise. Id. at 445 (emphasis added).