Tango Marine v. Elephant Group, No. 21-10068 (5th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on December 3, 2021.

Download PDF
Case: 21-10068 Document: 00516235781 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/11/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 11, 2022 No. 21-10068 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Tango Marine S.A., Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Elephant Group Limited; Elephant Group, P.L.C., Defendants—Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:20-CV-42 ON PETITION FOR REHEARING (Opinion, December 3, 2021, 5th Cir., 19 F.4th 808) Before Jones, Southwick, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: No member of the panel nor judge in regular active service of the court having requested that the court be polled on Rehearing En Banc (Fed. R. App. P. and 5th Cir. R. 35), the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. Case: 21-10068 Document: 00516235781 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/11/2022 No. 21-10068 Because of the absence of a request for a poll of the en banc court, this panel will treat the petition as one for panel rehearing. Fed. R. App. P. 40; 5th Cir. R. 40. We will deny rehearing and again affirm the district court judgment, but we will also withdraw our prior opinion. Consequently, we address a few points about the effect of our affirmance. The Plaintiff’s amended complaint asserted jurisdiction in the Northern District of Texas despite its acknowledgement that the “Defendants cannot be found in this District within the meaning of Supplemental Rule B.” That cited rule allows for suit in a district in which a defendant cannot be found on the basis of a complaint that seeks attachment of a defendant’s assets in the district in the hands of garnishees. FED. R. CIV. P., SUPP. RULE B. The amended complaint identified several garnishees in the district and sought issuance of process for attachment and garnishment of the Defendants’ property in their possession of a value “up to the amount of at least $4,510,058.20 (principal damages as set out above, $50,000 for interest, costs and attorneys’ fees) to secure Tango’s claims.” The extent of the relief the judgment grants against the Defendants is defined by the jurisdiction asserted under Supplemental Rule B. After review of the briefs and record and consideration of oral argument, we conclude that the district court committed no reversible error in granting judgment. We AFFIRM. We withdraw our prior opinion. See Tango Marine S.A. v. Elephant Grp. Ltd., 19 F.4th 808 (5th Cir. 2021). The panel specifically withdraws its interpretation of Great Prize, S.A. v. Mariner Shipping Party, Ltd., 967 F.2d 157, 159 (5th Cir. 1992). See id. at 814. What Great Prize means can be left for an appeal in which its meaning matters. It does not in this case. The petition for rehearing is DENIED. 2

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.