Opinion
03 Civ. 6039 (DLC)
April 7, 2004
Patrick F. Lennon, Esq., Tisdale Lennon, LLC, New York, New York, For Plaintiff
Kirk M. H. Lyons, Esq., Lyons, Skoufalos, Proios Flood, LLP, New York, New York, For Defendant
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant Euro-Maritime Chartering Ltd. ("EMC") seeks an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) ("Section 1292(b)") from this Court's decision denying EMC's motion to vacate an attachment of an electronic funds transfer. Noble Shipping, Inc. v. Euro-Maritime Chartering Ltd., No. 03 Civ. 6039 (DLC), 2003 WL 23021974 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 24, 2003) ("December 24 Opinion"). The Second Circuit law governing the analysis of a Section 1292(b) motion has been recently described in this Court's Opinion in In re WorldCom. Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 02 Civ. 3288 (DLC), 2003 WL 22953644, at *3-4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2003), and that description is incorporated here.
In arguing this motion, both EMC and plaintiff Noble Shipping, Inc. ("Noble") have relied on the description of the law in theWorldCom decision.
While EMC has identified an issue of law for certification, it has not met the other requirements for Section 1292(b) certification. Resolution of this issue on appeal will not materially advance the ultimate termination of this litigation, since Noble has asserted an alternative ground for jurisdiction that remains unadjudicated. For similar reasons, the issue resolved in the December 24 Opinion will not necessarily be a controlling issue in this litigation. As significantly, EMC has not shown that there are substantial grounds for a difference of opinion regarding the result reached in the December 24 Opinion. EMC is unable to identify any contrary authority interpreting a maritime attachment under federal law. Its effort to find tension between the Second Circuit's decisions inWinter Storm Shipping. Ltd, v. TPI, 310 F.3d 263 (2d Cir. 2002), and United States v. Daccarret, 6 F.3d 37 (2d Cir. 1993), is rejected for the reasons set forth in the December 24 Opinion.Noble Shipping, 2003 WL 23021974, at *3. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendant's February 13, 2004 motion for certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) is denied.
SO ORDERED.