Legal Opinion
Aurora Maritime Co. v. Abdullah Mohamed Fahem & Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided July 19, 1995No. 94 Civ. 318 (SS), 94 Civ. 3319 (SS)PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion and Order
SOTOMAYOR, District Judge.
In these admiralty cases, garnishee The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited (“HSBC”) seeks to vacate attachments issued to plaintiffs under Rule B of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims (“Rule B”). For the reasons set forth below, the motion to vacate the attachments is denied.
Background
The facts in this case are not in dispute. Plaintiffs Aurora Maritime (“Aurora”) and Medmar Inc. (“Medmar”) entered into an agreement with Abdullah Mohamed Fahem & Co. (“Fahem”) to transport grain from the United States to…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Southern Pacific Company v. JensenSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- CSX Transportation, Inc. v. EasterwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. HawnSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
- American Dredging Co. v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Aurora Maritime Co. And Medmar, Inc. v. Abdullah Mohamed Fahem & Co., the Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, Garnishee-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1996
- T & O Shipping, Ltd. v. Lydia Mar Shipping Co. S.A.District Court, S.D. New York · 2006
- In Re M/V Rickmers Genoa LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2009