A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S v. Ocean Express Miami
District Court, S.D. New York
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SWEET, District Judge.
Defendant Commereializadora De Cali-dad, S.A. (“Quality Print” or the “Defendant”) has moved pursuant to Rule E(4)(f) to vacate the attachment obtained by plaintiff A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S (“Maersk” or the “Plaintiff’) and pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.
The dispute arises out of the intended shipment from Milwaukee to Guatemala by way of New Orleans of four containers containing…
2Cases cited47 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Papasan v. AllainSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. ShuteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Maersk, Inc. v. NEEWRA, INC.District Court, S.D. New York · 2009
- F.H. Bertling Holding KG v. Ranhill Engineers & Constructors Sdn. Bhd.District Court, S.D. New York · 2008
- Laufer Group International v. Tamarack Industries, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2009
- Block v. Interoil Corp.District Court, N.D. Texas · 2019
- Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance PLC v. Rogers Transportation Management Services, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2010
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.