K Inv., 2021 WL 3477356, at *2 (internal citations omitted) (cleaned up). "At the Rule E(4)(f) hearing stage, the burden rests with the plaintiff to show that the requirements of Supplemental Rules B and E have been satisfied." Knox v. Hornbeck Offshore Servs., LLC, No. 3:19-CV-00181, 2019 WL 3202296, at *2 (S.D. Tex. July 16, 2019). "[D]istrict courts in this circuit have held that 'Rule E(4)(f) hearings are not for purposes of 'mak[ing] binding determinations of fact', but rather ... for 'merely holding that it is likely that alleged facts are true.'"
That is, when an order of attachment is challenged under Supplemental Rule E, “the burden is on the plaintiff to show that ‘1) it has a valid prima facie admiralty claim against the defendant; 2) the defendant cannot be found within the district; 3) the defendant's property may be found within the district; and 4) there is no statutory or maritime law bar to the attachment.'” Id. at *5 (quoting Aqua Stoli, 460 F.3d at 445 & n.5); see also Knox v. Hornbeck Offshore Servs., LLC, 2019 WL 3202296, at *2 (S.D. Tex. July 16, 2019) (“At the Rule E(4)(f) hearing stage, the burden rests with the plaintiff to show that the requirements of Supplemental Rules B and E have been satisfied.”).
Dkt. 30 at 14. Lastly, I must address the weight that Texcem places on my decision in Knox v. Hornbeck Offshore Servs., LLC, No. 3:19-CV-00181, 2019 WL 3202296 (S.D. Tex. July 16, 2019), a case in which I granted equitable vacatur. When I granted equitable vacatur in Knox, both the first and second prongs of Aqua Stoli's equitable vacatur test were satisfied, and the parties were already engaged in litigation in the district where they were both located.
After an attachment order has been issued, a defendant or any person claiming an interest in the restrained property may move to vacate the attachment and demand a “prompt hearing” under Rule E(4)(f). Knox v. Hornbeck Offshore Services, LLC, No. 3:19-CV-181, 2019 WL 3202296, at *2 (S.D. Tex. July 16, 2019). At the Rule E(4)(f) hearing, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the requirements of Rule B and Rule E have been satisfied and showing that the attachment should not be vacated.
P. ADM. SUPP. R. E(4)(f), Advisory Committee's Note to 1985 Amendment). “At the Rule E(4)(f) hearing stage, the burden rests with the plaintiff to show that the requirements of Supplemental Rules B and E have been satisfied.” Knox v. Hornbeck Offshore Servs., LLC, No. 3:19-CV-00181, 2019 WL 3202296, at *2 (S.D. Tex. July 16, 2019). “[D]istrict courts have often initially granted attachment and then used Rule E hearings to determine whether the requirements of Rule B were in fact met.”