Geneve Butane, Inc. v. National Oil Corporation, e, No. 12-20756 (5th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on January 8, 2014.
Download PDF
Case: 12-20756 Document: 00512493709 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 12-20756 FILED January 8, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk GENEVE BUTANE, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff Appellant Cross Appellee, v. NATIONAL OIL CORPORATION, Defendant, v. BP AMERICA, INCORPORATED, Garnishee-Appellee Cross Appellant, EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION; HESS CORPORATION; OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Garnishees Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas No. 4:12-CV-2205 Before OWEN, SOUTHWICK, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 12-20756 Document: 00512493709 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2014 Plaintiff Geneve Butane appeals the district court s denial of its request for additional discovery, the dismissal of its Supplemental Rule B proceeding, and the vacatur of its order of attachment. We review the district court s order vacating the maritime attachment and dismissing the proceeding for an abuse of discretion, though the legal conclusions underlying the order are reviewed de novo. 1 We review the denial of the request for additional discovery for an abuse of discretion. 2 The parties are familiar with the facts of this case. After considering the district court s decision, the briefing, and the oral arguments, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the attachment and dismissing the proceeding without prejudice. We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Geneve additional discovery. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Vitol, S.A. v. Primerose Shipping Co., 708 F.3d 527, 541 (4th Cir. 2013); Shipping Corp. of India v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd., 585 F.3d 58, 66 (2d Cir. 2009); cf. Great Prize, S.A. v. Mariner Shipping Party, Ltd., 967 F.2d 157, 160 (5th Cir. 1992). 1 2 United States ex rel. Taylor-Vick v. Smith, 513 F.3d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 2008).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
