Salazar v. Atlantic Sun

53 Citing cases

  1. James v. M/V "Eagle Express"

    CA 12-423-MJ-C (S.D. Ala. Jul. 27, 2012)

    Linea Naviera De Cabotaje, C.A. v. Mar Caribe De Navegacion, C.A., 1999 WL 33218589 at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 17, 1999) (citing Amstar Corp. v. S/SAlexandros T., 664 F.2d 904, 910-12 (4th Cir. 1981)).As the Supplemental Admiralty rules do not specify the form of the post-arrest hearing, the details of the proceeding are left to the Court's discretion. Salazar v. Atlantic Sun, 881 F.2d 73, 79 (3d Cir. 1989). Nevertheless,

  2. Atl. Wreck Salvage, LLC v. Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel

    Civil Action No. 1:14-CV-03280 (D.N.J. Apr. 13, 2021)

    Due to their distinct historical and doctrinal origins, in rem maritime proceedings present unique "circumstances" that require unique consideration of what constitutes reasonable notice. See Salazar v. Atl. Sun, 881 F.2d 73, 76 (3d Cir. 1989) (noting that some federal courts have "reasoned that the unique historical and constitutional foundations of admiralty law may place maritime claims beyond the sweep of common law in rem cases."). "Proceedings in rem against a vessel ... have long been recognized as part of the maritime law administered by the district courts of the United States pursuant to ... Article III, section 2 of the Constitution."

  3. Sikousis Legacy, Inc. v. B-Gas Ltd.

    97 F.4th 622 (9th Cir. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    After Rule E was amended in 1985, the Third Circuit described the applicable standard as "whether there were reasonable grounds for issuing the arrest warrant." Salazar v. Atl. Sun, 881 F.2d 73, 79 (3d Cir. 1989) (emphasis added).

  4. United States v. Obaid

    971 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2020)   Cited 10 times

    Characterizes the Delaware court's exercise of jurisdiction as "in rem jurisdiction to sequester shares of stock and stock options" even though the action was quasi in rem. Id. at 601.• Salazar v. Atlantic Sun , 881 F.2d 73, 76, 80 (3d Cir. 1989) - admiralty case. Distinguishes Shaffer on the basis that Shaffer did not arise "in the admiralty context," and rejected a due process claim raised by the owner.

  5. World Fuel Servs. Sing. PTE, Ltd. v. M/V AS Varesia

    No. 17-30018 (5th Cir. Mar. 12, 2018)   Cited 6 times

    "The hearing is not intended to definitively resolve the dispute between the parties; rather, the [c]ourt must make a preliminary determination whether reasonable grounds exist for the arrest." A. Coker & Co. v. Nat'l Shipping Agency Corp., No. CIV. A. 99-1440, 1999 WL 311941, at *1 (E.D. La. May 17, 1999) (citing Salazar v. Atl. Sun, 881 F.2d 73, 79-80 (3d Cir. 1989)). The parties do not dispute for present purposes that the basic prerequisites of this provision have been met.

  6. Petroleos Mexicanos Refinacion v. King

    554 F.3d 99 (3d Cir. 2009)   Cited 25 times

    Because this is an in rem action, the vessel itself is the defendant with owner King David Shipping Co. merely acting on its behalf. See Salazar v. Atlantic Sun, 881 F.2d 73, 76 (3d Cir. 1989). For simplicity's sake, we will dispense with the linguistic formality in the opinion and refer simply to King David's actions, arguments, etc., while recognizing that it appears only on behalf of its vessel.

  7. Genco Constellation Ltd. v. BG Shipping Co.

    Civil Action 4:23-cv-00365 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 15, 2023)

    .” Salazar v. Atl. Sun, 881 F.2d 73, 79 (3d Cir. 1989). “This standard has been defined as ‘probable cause' or ‘reasonable grounds.' The standard applies to post-attachment cases as well as post-arrest cases.”

  8. Ly v. Lesenskyj

    Civil Action No. 17-2203 (BRM) (D.N.J. Nov. 16, 2017)

    Plaintiffs state that since the defendant's vessel was involved in a maritime casualty resulting in personal injury to plaintiffs, plaintiffs have a maritime lien on the vessel which is enforced by arresting the vessel. Id. (citing Salazar v. Atlantic Sun, 881 F. 2d 73 (3d Cir. 1989). II. Analysis

  9. World Fuel Servs. Erurope, Ltd. v. Thoresen Shipping Singapore Private Ltd.

    155 F. Supp. 3d 1226 (S.D. Ala. 2015)   Cited 1 times

    “When a defendant challenges the validity of an attachment, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove there was reasonable grounds for issuing the writ.” Id. (citing Salazar v. Atlantic Sun , 881 F.2d 73, 79 (3rd Cir.1989) ). “In making its determination on this issue, the Court's inquiry must focus on the facts known at the time of the attachment.” Id. (citation omitted).

  10. Flame S.A. v. Indus. Carriers, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-658 (E.D. Va. Oct. 22, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    Rae v. Perry, 392 Fed. Appx. 753, 755 (11th Cir. 2010). Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, FBP's position has already been rejected in Salazar v. Atlantic Sun, 881 F.2d 73 (3d Cir. 1989). In that case, the owner of the attached property cited to Gerard Construction Inc, for the same proposition—that is "after an auction has been held, an owner has the absolute right to possession of its vessel upon posting a bond equal to the amount of the highest bid."