A SHIP CHARTERER'S MOTION TO VACATE A MARITIME ATTACHMENT ORDER WAS GRANTED. PLAINTIFF'S INDEMNITY CLAIM AGAINST CHARTERER WAS NOT RIPE BECAUSE IT HAD NOT YET BEEN ORDERED TO PAY DAMAGES TO VESSEL OWNER. PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE VALID PRIMA FACIE ADMIRALTY
BOTTIGLIERI DI NA VIGAZIONE SPA, Plaintiff, -against- TRADELINE LLC, Defendant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8278
February 6, 2007, Decided
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant ship charterer entered into a charter party with plaintiff disponent owner, chartering a ship to carry a shipment of corn. Plaintiff then entered into a charter party with the vessel's actual owner, to obtain use of the vessel. Plaintiff filed a suit against the charterer after the owner threatened to commence arbitration against it. The charterer moved to vacate an order of maritime attachment entered by the court.
OVERVIEW: The charter party contracts required disputes to be arbitrated in London under English law. The owner commenced arbitration against plaintiff after paying a substantial amount in damages to the recipient of the corn shipment. Plaintiff then filed its suit against the charterer. It successfully obtained an almost $ 3 million maritime attachment order. The charterer moved to vacate the attachment order. It argued that plaintiff was asserting an indemnity claim against it, that the claim was unripe because the owner's arbitration had not yet been resolved and that, therefore, plaintiff did not have a valid prima facie admiralty claim against it, which was required for issuance of an attachment under Supp. R. Certain Adm. & Mar. Cl. B, E. Plaintiff countered that it was asserting a breach of contract claim and that the claim had accrued when the parties' charter party contract was breached. The court found, based on the allegations in the complaint, that plaintiff was asserting an indemnity claim against the charterer. That claim was not yet ripe under English law because plaintiff had not yet been ordered to reimburse the owner for the damages that it had paid.
OUTCOME: The court granted the charterer's motion to vacate the order of maritime attachment.
