Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A., v. Ningbo Toptrade Imp. Exp. Co. LTD.,, No. 1:2006cv03391 - Document 33 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Accordingly, defendants' motion to dismiss is denied as premature. (Signed by Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum on 3/27/2009) (jpo)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DI STRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------X MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY S .A ., Plaintiff, -against- MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 06 Civ. 3391 (MGC) NINGBO TOPTRADE IMP . EXP . CO . TOPTRADE RECYCLING (USA ) INC ., LEE, LTD ., AND NEWDEH Defendants. ----------------------------------X APPEARANCES: & FROMM LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff 355 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10017 BROWN GAVALAS By: Peter Skoufalos, Esq. HILL RIVKINS & HAYDEN LLP Attorneys for Defendants 45 Broadway New York, New York 10006 By: Keith B. Dalen, Esq. Andrew R. Brown, Esq. 1 Cedarbaum, J. In May 2006, Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A., ( MSC ) brought this action against Ningbo Toptrade Import Export Co. Ltd., ( Ningbo ) Toptrade Recycling (USA), Inc., and Newdeh Lee for issuance of a Process of Maritime Attachment and Garnishment pursuant to Rule B of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty and Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions. The attachment was issued, and the Bank of New York restrained an Electronic Fund Transfer of $500,000 originated by Ningbo on July 12, 2007. MSC filed a duplicate action against the very same defendants in the Central District of California. Judge Feess of the Central District of California dismissed that complaint sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. He found that MSC s injury had occurred on land and thus could not support admiralty jurisdiction. Mediterranean Shipping Co. v. Ningbo Toptrade Imp. Ex. Co, et al., No. CV 07-0733 (GAF) (C.D. Cal. June 26, 2007). MSC filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on August 2, 2007, and the parties argued the appeal before the Ninth Circuit on February 2, 2009. On April 21, 2008, defendants appeared though counsel in this action and moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Neither party has submitted authority on the res judicata effect of the proceedings in their identical case now 2 awaiting decision by the Ninth Circuit. Accordingly, defendants motion to dismiss is denied as premature. SO ORDERED. Date: New York, New York March 27, 2009 S/______________________________ MIRIAM GOLDMAN CEDARBAUM United States District Judge 3

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.