United States District Court, S.D. New York
April 7, 2004.
NOBLE SHIPPING, INC., Plaintiff,
EURO-MARITIME CHARTERING LIMITED Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: DENISE COTE, District Judge
Defendant Euro-Maritime Chartering Ltd. ("EMC") seeks an interlocutory
appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) ("Section 1292(b)") from this
Court's decision denying EMC's motion to vacate an attachment of an
electronic funds transfer. Noble Shipping, Inc. v. Euro-Maritime
Chartering Ltd., No. 03 Civ. 6039 (DLC), 2003 WL 23021974 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.
24, 2003) ("December 24 Opinion"). The Second Circuit law governing the
analysis of a Section 1292(b) motion has been recently described in this
Court's Opinion in In re WorldCom, Inc. Sec. Litiq., No. 02 Civ. 3288
(DLC), 2003 WL 22953644, at *3-4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2003), and that
description is incorporated here.*fn1
While EMC has identified an issue of law for certification, it has not
met the other requirements for Section 1292(b) certification. Resolution
of this issue on appeal will not materially advance the ultimate
termination of this litigation, since Noble has asserted an alternative
ground for jurisdiction that remains unadjudicated. For similar reasons,
the issue resolved in the December 24 Opinion will not necessarily be a
controlling issue in this litigation. As significantly, EMC has not shown
that there are substantial grounds for a difference of opinion regarding
the result reached in the December 24 Opinion. EMC is unable to identify
any contrary authority interpreting a maritime attachment under federal
law. Its effort to find tension between the Second Circuit's decisions in
Winter Storm Shipping, Ltd, v. TPI, 310 F.3d 263
(2d Cir. 2002), and
United States v. Daccarret, 6 F.3d 37 (2d Cir. 1993), is rejected for the
reasons set forth in the December 24 Opinion. Noble Shipping, 2003 WL
23021974, at *3. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the defendant's February 13, 2004 motion for certification
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) is denied.