Goforth v. Owens
766 F.2d 1533 (11th Cir. 1985) Cited 852 timesHolding that dismissal is warranted upon a "clear record of delay or willful contempt and a finding that lesser sanctions would not suffice"
Aqua Stoli Shipping Ltd. v. Gardner Smith Pty Ltd.
460 F.3d 434 (2d Cir. 2006) Cited 249 timesHolding that "Rule B specifies the sum total of what must be shown for a valid maritime attachment"
Shipping Corp. of India Ltd. v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd.
585 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2009) Cited 216 times 3 Legal AnalysesIn Shipping Corp. of India Ltd. v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd., 585 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2009), we determined that under New York law "EFTs are neither the property of the originator nor the beneficiary while briefly in the possession of an intermediary bank."
A/S J. Ludwig Mowinckles Rederi v. Tidewater Construction Corp.
559 F.2d 928 (4th Cir. 1977) Cited 178 timesHolding indemnification issue not ripe prior to adjudication of underlying claims
Chiquita International Ltd. v. Mv Bosse
518 F. Supp. 2d 589 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) Cited 24 timesFinding that a defendant had an attachable interest in funds “directed to or from [its] bank accounts,” where the defendant asserted that the transfer had been made by nonparties for an “intended business purpose”
Armstrong v. Alabama Power Co.
667 F.2d 1385 (11th Cir. 1982) Cited 58 timesAffirming dismissal of indemnity suits as premature prior to entry of judgment in underlying lawsuit
Bottiglieri Di Na Vigazione Spa v. Tradeline LLC
472 F. Supp. 2d 588 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) Cited 18 timesGranting motion to vacate order of attachment because plaintiff's indemnity claim was not ripe under English law
Navalmar
485 F. Supp. 2d 399 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) Cited 16 timesDeclining to vacate attachment and holding that an indemnity claim was ripe under English law because unlike Bottiglieri, plaintiff had already posted a bank guarantee for the benefit of the third-party
Beluga Chartering GmbH v. Korea Logistics Systems Inc.
589 F. Supp. 2d 325 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) Cited 8 timesObserving that whether a claim is maritime depends on federal law, and citingHarley Mullion for proposition that "[t]here is some disagreement within this District as to whether the question of the claim's further `validity' is governed by federal law . . . or the substantive law that will govern the underlying action," but finding that plaintiff asserted valid claim under either English or American law
Sanko Steamship Co. v. China Natl. Chartering Corp.
536 F. Supp. 2d 362 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) Cited 6 timesConcluding "that the amount of the attachment must be reduced as [plaintiff] has overreached in the amount it attached based on this claim" and, absent "documentary evidence regarding fees and costs," "accept[ing] [defendant's] estimation of . . . sufficient security for costs"
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 72,489 times 129 Legal AnalysesHolding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time
Rule 83 - Rules by District Courts; Judge's Directives
Fed. R. Civ. P. 83 Cited 1,055 times 3 Legal AnalysesGranting authority to District Court to adopt local rules
Rule 4.1 - Serving Other Process
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.1 Cited 250 timesInstructing that "[p]rocess . . . may be served anywhere within the territorial limits of the state where the district court is located"