*4
ty they seized in accord with that writ.
BEEZER,
Before ROBERT R.
appeal
We have
over this
M.
and RICHARD C.
RONALD
GOULD
§
pursuant
to 28 U.S.C.
1291. We hold
TALLMAN,
Judges.
Circuit
first deci-
although
the district court’s
proper,
sion was
the district court abused
ORDER
Eq-
its discretion
the second decision.
opinion
February
The
2010 is
filed
not have
ap-
uitable vacatur should
been
hereby
opinion
The amended
amended.
plied against
individually.
concurrently
filed
with this order.
I
petition
rehearing
The
for
filed
De-
16, 2010
fendants-Appellees
February
litigants’ legal
formally
on
relationship
The
9, 2006,
rehearing
began
April
when EP-Team1
petition
DENIED. The
for
companies
corporation
enterprise
ment
that works with
EP-Team a
with its
is Delaware
Mound,
place
principal
variety
of business in Flower
across a
of business sectors.
manage-
consulting
Texas. EP-Team is a
and
into
Aspen2
and
entered
the Sales and
A
Logistics
Agreement.
Services
Under
6, 2007,
August
On
Agreement, ProShipLine,3 as EP-Team’s
against Aspen
EP-Team filed suit
in the
designated agent
assignee, agreed
EP-Team,
Southern District of Texas.
Aspen’s general
act as
and port
sales
ser-
Aspen Infrastructure,
Inc. v.
No. 4:07
agent. ProShipLine
vices
and EP-Team
(S.D.Tex.
2007).
Aug.
Civ. 2549
Pro-
cargo
trips
solicited
for return
to India and ShipLine and EP-Team sought declarato-
port
operations
handled
.terminal
ry relief regarding the construction and
Aspen throughout America.4
Agreement
enforcement of the
and to com-
pel
arbitration.
then
stay
moved to
Agreement
parties’
The
contains a fo-
pending
the case
parties’
resolution of the
that,
says
rum selection clause that
in the
disputes through
in Singapore.
arbitration
dispute
of a
parties,
case
between the
arbi-
On December
District
Texas
place
Singapore.
tration should take
granted Aspen’s
Court
motion and admin-
Agreement
also includes a choice-of-
istratively closed the suit. The court ex-
that,
providing
law clause
in such a dis-
pressly
open
option
left
to reinstate
*5
pute,
Agreement
the
should be construed
following
case
the conclusion of the
and enforced in
English
accord with
law.
proceedings.
arbitration
ProShipLine’s,
EP-Team’s and
7, 2007,
On December
ProShipLine and
contractual
in good
remained
relationship
EP-Team
a
against
initiated
second action
standing
year.
more
a
than
Aspen in the Southern District of Texas.
ProShipLine’s,
Aspen's
EP-Team’s and
ProShipLine, Inc. v.
BELUGA REV-
M/V
relationship became strained in the sum- OLUTION,
H-07-4170,
No.
2007 WL
mer of 2007. Each side blames the other
(S.D.Tex.
5397377,
2007).
7,
at *1
Dec.
In
for breaching
Agreement.5
We do not
action,
ProShipLine and EP-Team
examine the merit of these contentions.
sought an order and writ of maritime at-
only
We observe
that the conflict resulted
pursuant
tachment
to Rule B. The district
terminating their business
10,
court
issued the writ on December
1,
relationship on or about August
2007.
Aspen
2007.
immediately moved to vacate
The end of the
relationship
business
conducting
writ. After
evidentiary
an
marked the onset of
litigation
extensive
hearing
14, 2007,
on December
the district
Texas, New
Washington.
York and
granted
court
Aspen’s motion and vacated
contracting,
2. At the time
Aspen, closely-
Aspen
of
4.
transport
charters vessels to
wind
India,
enterprise incorporated
held
generator
components
did
turbine
from India to
countries,
business under the name of
Infra-
including
Suzlon
other
the United States.
past
years,
structure Ltd. Over the
several
In an
returning
effort to avoid vessels
to India
handed,
changed
Suzlon
empty
Infrastructure Ltd.
Aspen
its name
entered the contract
Ltd.,
Aspen
to
carriage
Infrastructures
had
cargo
its name
business to obtain
for its re-
revert back to Suzlon
trips
Infrastructure Ltd. and
turn
to India.
changed
again
Synefra
its
Engineer-
name
to
ing & Construction Ltd. In the interest of
ProShipLine
5.
allege
and EP-Team
that As-
simplicity,
enterprise
we refer to this
as "As-
pen sought
multiple
to involve them in
trans-
pen” regardless of its actual name at different
ProShipLine
actions that
and EP-Team be-
points in time.
illegal. Aspen alleges
lieved were
that it had
grown
ProShipLine’s
dissatisfied with
ProShipLine
corporation
is a Nevada
performance,
with
especially regarding
EP-Team’s
ip Houston,
principal place
bookkeeping
handling
business
and the
aof bank ac-
ProShipLine
Texas.
operated
serves as a
by ProShipLine
contract car-
count
and EP-Team
types
cargo.
rier for various
Aspen.
on behalf of
ProShipLine appealed
Belu- vacated the writ.8
Inc. v.
ProShipLine,
the writ.6
M/V
Revolution,
H-07-4170, 2007 WL
grant
No.
of this motion to
the district court’s
ga
2007).
(S.D.Tex. Dec.18,
4481101,at *1
Circuit,
which affirmed the dis
Second
ProShipLine,
Aspen
trict court.
Inc. v.
B
(2d
Ltd.,
105, 110
Infrastructures,
proceedings
place
took
legal
Cir.2009)
Similar
(affirming “solely
ground
on the
12, 2007, Aspen
York. On October
New
not err in
that the district
did
con
individually
EP-Team
brought
against
suit
cluding that[ProShipLine
Aspen]
were
(the
York
District of New
the Southern
in the
present
both
Southern District of
Action”). Aspen
“First New York
Infra Texas”).
Team, Inc.,
structures,
E.P.
No. 07
Ltd. v.
8813(RWS),
Jan.
was subse
II
quently sold.10
an
We review
order
vacating
February
On
Aspen moved to writ of maritime attachment for abuse of
vacate the writ that the district court is- discretion.
Equatorial Marine
Fuel
sued in the Washington Action and to ex- Mgmt.
Berhad,
Servs. Pte Ltd. v. MISC
security
onerate the
by ProShipLine
held
(9th Cir.2010).
We
pursuant
and EP-Team
to that writ. Pro-
legal
review the
supporting
conclusions
ShipLine, Inc.
Aspen Infrastructures,
such an order de novo. Id.
(W.D.Wash. Mar.28,
967
25,
644,
obligations.”
124
Id. at
125
novo),
land-based
aff'd, 540 U.S.
de
viewed
(2004).
1221, 157
conceptual approach
1146
385. The
ac-
L.Ed.2d
S.Ct.
S.Ct.
reality by examin-
knowledges this modern
Ill
the contract references “mari-
ing whether
or maritime transactions.”
time service
ProShipLine’s
court vacated
The district
24,
(quoting
Pac.
attach-
Id. at
sible international maritime suits involve of the same (4) right; substantially ations. whether presented same evidence is in the two Contrary to the district court’s conclu- actions. sion, Agreement gives rise to federal v. Mpoyo Electro-Optical Sys., Litton maritime 430 under 28 U.S.C. (9th 985, Cir.2005) § F.3d 987 interpretation Agree- (emphasis 1333. Our of the added). Circuit, ment in accord with the Second Whether two suits arise out of Agreement which that the has concluded the “same transactional depends nucleus” “undeniably maritime flavor” an under the upon they “whether are related to the Railway conceptual Southern Co. they same set of facts and whether could Norfolk ProShipLine, test. Inc. v. conveniently together.” he tried Sys.,W. Infra- (2d structures, Ltd., 105, 585 F.3d 115 Ulloa, (9th 864, Inc. v. 958 F.2d 871 Cir. .2009). Cir 1992) added). (emphasis Reliance on the transactional especially nucleus element is
B appropriate because the element is “out- judicata Res bars a suit when “a come Mpoyo, determinative.” F.3d at 430 judgment final on the merits of an action 988; Karr, see also Int’l Union v. 994 F.2d or their precludes privies from (9th Cir.1993). 1426,1429-30 relitigating issues that or were could have Here, application the district court’s of been raised that action.” Allen v. judicata res was erroneous because there 90, 94, 101 McCurry, 411, 449 U.S. S.Ct. identity is no appeal of claims. The before (1980). L.Ed.2d 308 We have further ex us and the Second York New Action do not plained judicata applies res when arise from the same “transactional nucle- “(1) (2) claims; an identity there is Although us.” both cases involve similar (3) merits; judgment final on the iden facts, sets of the claim this suit could tity privity or parties.” between Stewart not have been tried in the Second New (9th Bancorp, U.S. 297 F.3d all, York Action at much conveniently. less Cir.2002). In bring order to a claim of maritime Circuit,
The district court abused attachment within the Second discretion concluding plaintiff allege that it was bound must that “the defendant’s judicata res to vacate the writ property to con be found within the district” form with the Southern District of New garnishment where the being action is York’s decision to vacate the writ involved brought. Aqua Shipping Stoli Ltd. v. in the Second York New Action. We ex Pty Gardner Smith amine (2d Cir.2006). four factors to determine whether n.& 5 The Southern Dis- there an “identity of claims”: trict of New York is completely unable to
(1) whether entertain a claim seeking admiralty the two suits attach- arise out of facts; vessel, the same ment of property transactional on board a nucleus of such (2) rights whether Beluga, or as the located in the interests estab- Western Dis- lished in the prior judgment trict of Washington. identity would be Absent an destroyed impaired by prosecution claims, or judicata res apply cannot in this *9 (3) action; the second whether the two case.12 parlies
12. The have been solely preclusion inconsistenl in their rests on claim or alternative- judicata” use of the term "res in their brief- ly preclusion. on both claim and issue Inso- ing, referring sometimes to both claim and may far as the district court have relied on preclusion. issue It is also unclear from the preclusion, we issue conclude that none of the district court's order whether its decision district, personam is able to obtain in one
C jurisdiction in over the defendant “the” previously opportunity not had haveWe plaintiff district where the is “located.” vacatur in the upon equitable to elaborate Equitable potentially vacatur is warranted admiralty law. The Second Cir- of context in plaintiff such cases because the is able cuit, however, narrow described three has litigate against the defendant in the when, plaintiff having despite the instances plaintiffs most convenient district. See id. showing of successfully prima made a facie at that situation 444-45. We stress this to a of maritime attach- entitlement writ narrowly refers to “the” district where the ment, may of that writ equitable vacatur located, “any” not “a” or plaintiff is district appropriate: be plaintiff the is located. This district where vacate writ [a district [A] equitable scenario allows for vaca- limited if the defendant attachment] maritime only plaintiff tur when the could obtain in 1) is ... that the defendant sub- shows personam jurisdiction over the defendant adjacent ju- ject in a convenient to suit in plaintiff the federal district where the 2) risdiction; plaintiff could obtain the significant presence. has its most Our over the defen- jurisdiction personam in of the second understanding Aqua Stoli plaintiff in where the dant the district complete agreement with situation is the 3) located; already plaintiff or the has York, District of Southern New which has security po- for the obtained sufficient question. addressed this exact See Peter by attachment or oth- judgment, tential Dohle KG Sesa Goa Schiffahrts erwise. (S.D.N.Y.2009) 216, 224 F.Supp.2d Here, the district court held Id. at 445. (holding Aqua that the second Stoli sce- appropriate vacatur was equitable that ‘the’ nario “references district where the conclusion that the second based on its plaintiff concept closely is located ... [a] by the Second Circuit situation described ”); alignfed] legal term ‘domicile’ with that The district court reasoned applied. Aqua Shipping, see also Stoli 460 F.3d at EP-Team had success- ProShipLine and (noting equitable applies that vacatur jurisdiction personam fully obtained in circumstances”). only “limited District of over the Southern EP- ProShipLine that Texas and framework, analytic Under this in that district. “present” Team were both that correctly the district court concluded agree adopt Although we with equitable vacatur of the writ is warranted equitable vacatur laid out contours ProShipLine. question as to There is no Circuit, disagree we with the the Second ProShipLine that is “located” the South ap- court that the second situation district Texas, ern District of the district where it to EP-Team. plies and most principal place has its business Likewise, significant presence. the record Aqua Shipping
The second Stoli clearly that ProShipLine where a indicates could describes the situation scenario personam a maritime obtain in over As- seeking who is writ plaintiff, ’’present” in the Southern District of Texas is decided in the First New York Action issues preclusive has effect here. of whether EP-Team is irrelevant to issue III.C, First, Part And “located” there. See the district court’s conclusion in infra. third, possibility ProShipLine New York Action that the contract abused Second rejected not a maritime contract was parte nature of Rule B attachment the ex gives appeal and no basis Second Circuit on proceedings of New in the Southern District Second, preclusion. for issue district us. York is also irrelevant to the action before was court’s conclusion *10 970
pen in the District of Aspen personam jurisdic- Southern Texas be- could obtain in ProShipLine repeatedly engaged cause has in tion over EP-Team the district where Aspen litigation Equi- in in that district. Aspen was located. Aspen See Infrastruc- pertains table of the writ as it to tures, vacatur Team, Inc., Ltd. v. E.P. 2008 WL ProShipLine thereby warranted was be- (S.D.N.Y.2008). 2963491, at *1 In a one ProShipLine person- cause could obtain in line, order, handwritten the district court jurisdiction Aspen am over in the district concluded that EP-Team made that show- where is located. ing equitably vacated the writ. Con- assertion, trary Aspen’s po- EP-Team’s analysis This leads to a different sition in that in way suit is no inconsistent regards result in to EP-Team. EP-Team position with its here. Hamp- See New Texas, is located in the Eastern District of Maine, 742, 750-51, shire v. 532 U.S. signifi district where it has its most (2001) 1808,149 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 968 (holding presence cant due to its principal place of judicial estoppel may if, that be warranted Mound, in business Flower Texas.13 among things, party’s other a posi- later There is no indication in the record that “clearly tion is inconsistent” with earli- its personam juris EP-Team could obtain in There, position). er merely EP-Team in Aspen diction over that district. Based sought to that demonstrate it had suffi- facts, upon entirely undisputed these two presence cient in the Southern District of grant equitable against vacatur EP- Aspen Texas for to exercise personam in individually Team was an abuse of discre Here, it over there. Aspen tion because has not shown that significant asserts that its most presence EP-Team could obtain personam juris in Texas, in diction Aspen over the district Eastern District of where it where EP-Team is located.14 principal place has its of business. These two positions entirely are consistent and disagree We with Aspen’s contention provide judicial no basis estoppel. judicial that estoppel and the outcome of the First compel New York Action a dif- D ferent result. In the First New York Ac- tion, that, EP-Team’s and positions Aspen argues in addition to reversed, EP-Team, prompting were provided by three reasons the district pursuit vacatur, of equitable court, equitable show that vacatur of the writ was joint EP-Team’s significance mistaken statement in its principal place of EP-Team’s business, complaint Washington in the Action as to the we decline to bind EP-Team to its principal place Holder, location of its of business misstatement. See Hoodho v. (2d does not Cir.2009) warrant different conclusion. The F.3d (noting that a record does not indicate may disregard the district stipulation “court if to ac making court relied on the cept misstatement manifestly unjust it would be or if the Moreover, its decision. EP-Team had contrary stipulation little evidence to the is sub suspect (internal reason to principal place that its quotations stantial” and citation omitted)). any bearing upon business would have this matter, considering previous that we had not ly equitable embraced the doctrine of vacatur 14. Because the district court abused its dis- regards EP-Team, to maritime vacating writs and that no cretion in the writ as to circuit court nation had automatically defined the also abused its discretion exact Aqua contours of the second Ship ordering pay Stoli Aspen EP-Team to the market ping situation. undisputed Given the fact value of the attached resources. We need not principal place EP-Team’s ProShipLine's of business is argu- address and EP-Team's Mound, actually in complete Flower lack ment that the order to reimburse con- of reliance entry district court and the novel money judgment. stituted the of a *11 concluding in ProShipLine and its discretion because appropriate also alleged- § by 9 U.S.C. argument EP-Team violated lacks merit. pursuing without a Rule B writ
ly seeking IV Singapore. in The district arbitration by Aspen’s ar- was “not convinced” court ProShipLine and EP-Team con Neither are we. gument. the court tend that district also erred concluding that a district court the lacks provides: Section 8 Admiralty under the legal capacity Rules a cause of If the basis of be party post security a in lieu to order to of admiralty, in justiciable action otherwise conclu garnishment. The district court’s claiming aggrieved to be party ... the sion was correct. hereunder may begin proceeding his other and seizure of the vessel or libel Supplemental Admiralty and Maritime party other ... and the property of the E(4)(b) (“Rule E(4)(b)”) Rule states Claims jurisdiction to di- shall then have court warrant, may, pursuant that a marshal to a proceed with the arbi- rect the to possession tangible property take of .... tration custody or, in “possession safe cases where inter- Supreme § 8. The Court 9 U.S.C. impracticable,” may copy “affix a the [of Congressional a declara- prets Section 8 as to the in a property conspicuous warrant] admiralty procedure tion that “traditional E(5) place.” provides Rule that the “own- security its concomitant should be with any general file a er of vessel bond or despite aggrieved party” available to the to stipulation” cause the execution of all “parties agreed fact that the had to the vessel, processes against gar- the such as Sugar v. Am. arbitrate.” The Anaconda nishment, stayed provided to be that the Co., Refining 322 U.S. 64 S.Ct. stipulation or bond is sufficient. (1944). ability pur- The to L.Ed. 1117 that, ProShipLine argue and EP-Team attachment, however, maritime does sue aggregate, empower these Rules a “obligation to arbitrate party’s not lessen a a party post district to order to grievance.” Aspen argues Id. [its] security garnishment. in lieu of Neither properly the district court vacated writ provision remotely grants even district and EP-Team have because E(4)(b) authority. courts such Rule refers diligent pursuing not been arbitration impracticability only to the sense that it Singapore. a proper- allows marshal to leave notice on Aspen’s argument is weak on several ty that to Rule “impracticable” possess. plain text of Section 8 counts. Neither E(5) permissive gar- is a rule that allows interpretation Supreme nor Court’s security post having nishees to in lieu of suggests permits that the Section dis- property garnished. ProShipLine’s their B if it trict court to vacate Rule writ argument that and EP-Team’s novel these plaintiff pursuing deems that is not compel provisions post- allow courts salvage arbitration. also fails to its ing security garnishment in lieu of argument by citing any support case in of impracticability completely instances understanding novel of Section More- misinterprets underlying rules. over, if adopt Aspen’s even we were to interpretation, apply it still would not here y ambiguous because the record is as district court abused its discretion party actually has been at fault for
which by vacating pertains the -writ as it to EP- progress Singapore of the arbitra- the slow within Team. The writ shall be reinstated tion. The district court acted well *12 972 (9th 1208, Cir.2010), specified 1210 the individually. Because we
behalf of
elements for a Rule B writ of attachment:
to EP-
improperly
the writ was
vacated as
“(1)
prima
Plaintiff has a valid
facie admi-
Team,
to reimburse
for
the order
(2)
defendant;
ralty
against
claim
the
de-
property
also
garnished
the value of the
fendant cannot be found within the dis-
improper.
(3)
trict;
can
property of the defendant
be
on
on
party
Each
shall bear its
costs
(4)
district;
within the
and
there is
found
appeal.
statutory
no
or maritime law bar to the
part,
in
AFFIRMED
REVERSED
(citing Aqua
Ship-
attachment.” Id.
Stoli
part and REMANDED.
Pty
ping Ltd. Gardner Smith
460
(2d
434,
Cir.2006); Fed.R.CivJP.,
F.3d
445
TALLMAN,
Judge, concurring
Circuit
B).
Supp.
Noticeably missing
R.
the
from
part, dissenting
part:
security
satisfy
list is a
a
need
future
agree
majority’s analysis
I
with the
re-
Indeed,
judgment.
specifically
B
lim-
Rule
garding ProShipLine, and concur in the
its the use of attachment
to those situa-
affirming the vacatur of the mari-
opinion
tions in which the defendant “is not found
against
company.
time attachment
that
district,”
words,
within
other
when
However, I
disagree
the writ of at-
(yet)
the court
personam
does not
have in
appropriate
tachment was
as to EP-Team jurisdiction over the defendant. Attach-
(and
majority’s
with the
conclusion
solely
ment
to ensure satisfaction of a fu-
it),
in vacating
the district court erred
judgment
ture
a
is not
basis for Rule B
portion
opinion,
as to that
of our court’s
I
attachment.1
respectfully dissent.
I would hold that the
Turning from issuance of a writ of at-
late
Franklin
Judge
Burgess
D.
did not err
it,
tachment
to vacatur of
Ninth Circuit
under Rule E
B
vacating the Rule writ
jurisprudence interpreting when a Rule E
of attachment against EP-Team.
vacatur is warranted is not well developed.
The writ of attachment in maritime law
Fuel,
In Equatorial Marine
we concluded
See, e.g.,
has ancient roots.
Manro v.
may
that a court
order vacatur
a
B
of Rule
(10 Wheat.)
Almeida,
473,
23 U.S.
6 L.Ed.
Supplemental
attachment
under
Rule
(1825). Historically,
the writ served E(4)(f)
“plaintiff
if the
failed to meet one of
(1)
dual purposes:
personam
to obtain in
the four conditions for attachment” out-
(2)
respondent,
over the
to lined above. 591
at
(citing Aqua
F.3d
availability
satisfy
ensure the
of assets to
445).
Shipping,
Stoli
460 F.3d at
Howev-
judgment
plaintiff
in case the
succeeds
er,
any
we did not discuss
other instance
the merits.
& Co. Packers v. Com
Swift
where vacatur might
appropriate
be an
Caribe, S.A,
pania Colombiana Del
339 remedy.
U.S.
70 S.Ct.
444
from this
First, EP-Team
the Aqua
meets
Stoli
Shipping
premise,
Aqua Stoli
Shipping
“present
test because
listed three
then
circumstances
which same
Aspen]
[as
district
defendant
equitable
appropriate
vacatur
be
—the
subject
jurisdiction
would be
to
there.”
quoted
circumstances
three
above—includ-
at 444-45.
Id.
EP-Team acceded to in
ing two in which a defendant would be personam jurisdiction in the Southern
jurisdiction in
subject
personam
to in
a
by choosing
District of Texas
to file the
plaintiff.
convenient to
district
underlying
against Aspen in that
lawsuit
district,
only my colleagues fail to
and EP-Team’s counsel conceded
Not
do
consid-
jurisdiction
argument.
at
It
er the rationale behind the Second Cir-
there
oral
list, they
personal jurisdiction juris-
its formu-
tenet of
rigidly
cuit’s
adhere to
basic
Indeed,
majority
prudence
subjects
devotes an
that one
himself to the
lation.
jurisdiction
page
parsing
meaning
brings
of “the
of the court where he
entire
See, e.g.,
Light
peatedly alleged,
Merchants’ Heat &
the federal district court
suit.
Sons,
only
B.
in Houston is
Co. v. James
Clow &
U.S.
some
miles from
(1907)
Tacoma,
EP-Team’s consent to
was
requirements
Agreement
out the
of its
merely
not
that it
“allegation”
some
was
Aspen
subject
with
ultimate
of this
subject
in that
It willingly
to suit
district.
—the
has,
dispute
already
and in fact
process
power
availed itself of the
of
—EP-Team
created,
already
substantial contacts with
that
choosing
complaint
court
to file its
of
Southern District
Texas that it lacks
against Aspen
It
there.
should not now be
in the
Washington.
Western District of
permitted
“present”
to claim that it is not
The Southern District of Texas is conve-
or
“located”
the Southern District of
EP-Team;
indeed,
nient to
“the district
Texas when it
initiated the underlying
enough
has been convenient
for
[EP-
very
claim
case in that
in this
court. Free
to have chosen to
litigation
Team]
initiate
Co.,
448, 454,
man v. Bee Mach.
319 U.S.
against Aspen
separate
in two
actions
(1943) (ex
63 S.Ct.
sonam
Finally, strongly suggests the record being maritime attachments are em- by ProShipLine and EP-Team for
ployed harassing Aspen purpose
the vexatious advantage a tactical in the gain
in order to
pending disputes among commercial I Singapore and Houston. that fact alone sufficient as a
would hold granting equitable vaca-
separate basis such Equity
tur. should not countenance tactics,
litigation even a maritime case. not
The district did abuse its dis- equitable
cretion when found vacatur
appropriate as to both majority
EP-Team. Because the holds EP-Team, I respectfully
otherwise as to part opin-
dissent from that of the court’s
ion. TIRE AMER-
TOYO HOLDINGS OF INC.,
ICAS as successor interest
Toyo International, Inc., Tire Plain-
tiff-Appellant, TIRE AMER-
CONTINENTAL NORTH
ICA, INC., as successor interest Inc.; Corpo-
General Tire Yokohama America; Co.;
ration of Tire GTY 1-100, Defendants-Appellees.
Does
No. 10-55145. Appeals,
United States Court
Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted June 2010.
Filed June Indeed, agreed Singapore voluntarily to arbitration in follow- EP-Team has scoured this law, ing English “scouring country it is unclear that to attach assets wherever globe” present hardship. they may would much of a be found.