Calif. Court Nixes Freight Hauler's Bid to Attach Commodity Trader's Bank Account to Secure Claims in UK

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in an Oct. 26 order denied ocean freight carrier Tonzip Maritime's request to attach commodity trading firm Coral Energy's bank accounts supposedly held by garnishee ING Bank to secure its claims against Coral Energy in the U.K. High Court of Justice. In the U.K., Tonzip is claiming that Coral Energy breached an agreement under which the energy company chartered a Tonzip-owned crude oil tanker for a voyage from Russia to Turkey (Tonzip Maritime v. Coral Energy, E.D. Cal. # 2:23-02283).

Tonzip said that attachment was proper pursuant to Rule B of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the company has a "valid prima facie admiralty claim," Coral Energy is not located in the district, the energy company has a bank account held by the garnishee, which has an agent in the district, and there is no statutory bar to the attachment. The court already denied the application once, although Tonzip refiled with additional evidence, including a letter from the garnishee to Tonzip confirming Coral Energy holds accounts with the bank and "a current search" of "the Office of the California Secretary of State website confirming that Garnishee has an agent located within the District."

Judge Daniel Calabretta said the evidence here "does not satisfy the Court" that the freight company will be able to obtain "quasi in rem jurisdiction over the matter." The letter detailing the relationship with the garnishee fails to include any indication that Coral Energy's account is within the district or even the U.S. "There is no evidence that Garnishee has any ties to the District" beyond its agent for service of process, the judge said.

Tonzip's allegations that Coral Energy has attachable accounts by way of the garnishee's agent being located in the California district are "insufficient to establish quasi in rem jurisdiction," Calabretta said.