Second Circuit Continues to Erode the Power of Rule B
The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the equitable vacatur of a maritime attachment, even though all the requirements for the Rule B attachment had been met. In Proshipline v. Aspen Infrastructures, the plaintiff sought and obtained a Rule B attachment in the Southern District of New York, based on the (correct) assertion that defendant was not present in the District. Defendant moved to vacate the attachment, pointing out that the parties were engaged in a similar maritime lawsuit in the Southern District of Texas, where plaintiff had its corporate headquarters and where defendant was subject to personal jurisdiction. The District Court vacated the attachment because, among other things, the party that attached the funds and the party that owned the funds were present in another federal jurisdiction. Plaintiff appealed. In affirming the vacatur, the Appellate Court noted that equitable vacatur of writs of attachment, in contrast to vacatur for failure to comply with Rule B, turns not on the owner of attached funds’ relationship with the jurisdiction of attachment, but on both parties’ relationship with another jurisdiction. See ProShipLine v. Aspen Infrastructures, www.ca.2.uscourts.gov/decisions.
