Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
UNITED STATES ADMIRALTY AND SHIPPING LAW—RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
By Nicholas J. Healy* and Jerome Scowcroft**
Admiralty jurisdiction and practice
Arrest and Attachment.—Recent decisions in the First and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals have held that attachments under Rule B(1) of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims are not subject to the requirements of procedural due process applicable in non-maritime civil proceedings. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held in Schiffahrtsgesellschaft Leonhardt & Co. v. A. Bottachi S.A. de Navegacion
1 that a Rule B(1) attachment accompanied by notice and a prompt post-seizure hearing was constitutional in the absence of the other procedural safeguards developed by Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp.2 and its progeny3 for common law attachments effected prior to a hearing. The court stated that the guidelines of Sniadach and its progeny are displaced by the special needs and traditions of maritime commerce.4 The First Circuit Court of Appeals held in Trans-Asiatic Oil Ltd. v. Apex Oil Company
5 that a Rule B(1) attachment based on a particularized complaint and followed by a prompt post-seizure hearing was constitutional, and that the needs and traditions of maritime commerce displaced both the Sniadach line of cases and Shaffer v. Heitner.6 The court stated that the basic protection required for a maritime debtor is the assurance of a prompt post-seizure hearing.7
The admiralty arrest and attachment procedures have now been sanctioned to varying degrees by the First,8 Fourth,9 Fifth,10 Ninth11 and Eleventh12 Circuit Courts of Appeals. Concern over their constitutionality has nevertheless produced a
* Nicholas J. Healy is a member of the New York Bar, Adjunct Professor of Law at New York University, and Editor of the Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce.
** Jerome Scowcroft is a member of the New York Bar and Chief Editor of the Maritime Advisor Court Case Digest and the Maritime Advisor Arbitration Award Digest.
This article is reprinted by permission from the Annual Survey of American Law, 1984, published by the New York University School of Law.
1 732 F.2d 1543, 1984 A.M.C. 2113, reh’g en banc granted, 743 F.2d 763 (11th Cir. 1984).
2 395 U.S. 337 (1969).
3 North Georgia Finishing Inc. v. Di-Chem Inc., 419 U.S. 601 (1975); Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., 416 U.S. 600 (1974); Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972).
4 732 F.2d at 1546–49, 1984 A.M.C. at 2117–22.
5 743 F.2d 956, 1985 A.M.C. 1 (1st Cir. 1984).
6 433 U.S. 186 (1977).
7 743 F.2d at 962, 1985 A.M.C. at 9.
8 See notes 5–7 supra and accompanying text.
9 Amstar Corp. v. S/S Alexandros T., 644 F.2d 904 (4th Cir. 1981).
10 Merchants Nat’I Bank of Mobile v. The Dredge General G. L. Gillespie, 663 F.2d 1338, 1982 A.M.C. 1 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. dismissed, 456 U.S. 966 (1982).
11 Polar Shipping Ltd. v. Oriental Shipping Corp., 680 F.2d 627, 1982 A.M.C. 2330 (9th Cir. 1982).
12 See notes 1–4 supra and accompanying text.
350