## Facts

- Grand Bahama Petroleum Co., Ltd., a Bahamian corporation, operated a bunkering (fueling) facility in Freeport, Grand Bahama Island.
- A Soviet-flag vessel, allegedly owned by Murmansk Shipping Company and chartered to the defendants, took on fuel oil and related services at the facility in July 1977.
- Grand Bahama alleged an agreement to supply approximately 330 metric tons of fuel oil plus barge fees, conditioned on a contemporaneous $45,000 deposit, with any excess to be refunded.
- Grand Bahama alleged the defendants failed to pay for the bunkers and services.
- The defendants were foreign and were not found within the Western District of Washington, but Grand Bahama alleged they had funds in a Seattle-First National Bank account in the name of “Pacific Seatrans,” allegedly belonging to the defendants.
- Grand Bahama filed an in personam admiralty action and obtained attachment/garnishment of the bank account under Supplemental Rule B(1) in the amount of $8,851.38.
- Defendants appeared and moved to dismiss, arguing Rule B violated Fifth Amendment due process, both as a jurisdictional basis and as an ex parte seizure procedure.

## Issues

1. Whether due process requires “minimum contacts” beyond the presence of property in the district to support jurisdiction via maritime attachment under Supplemental Rule B(1).
2. Whether Rule B(1) attachment procedures allowing ex parte garnishment without pre-seizure notice and hearing deny procedural due process.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to dismiss.
- The court held that maritime attachment under Supplemental Rule B(1) remained constitutionally valid in federal admiralty notwithstanding due process concerns associated with property-based jurisdiction.
- The court held the Rule B procedures used to obtain the bank-account garnishment did not violate Fifth Amendment procedural due process.
- The attachment remained in effect, and the case proceeded.

## Legal Principles

- Federal maritime attachment under Supplemental Rule B is a historically recognized admiralty device that may be used to obtain security and compel appearance when a defendant cannot be found in the district but has attachable property there.
- Due process analysis of property-based jurisdiction does not categorically invalidate Rule B attachments in federal admiralty when the defendant’s property is located within the district and the remedy serves established maritime commerce purposes.
- Rule B’s safeguards—verified pleading of a maritime in personam claim, a showing that the defendant cannot be found in the district, judicially authorized process, and prompt post-seizure opportunities to appear, post security, and move to vacate—can satisfy Fifth Amendment procedural due process despite the absence of pre-seizure notice and hearing.
- In assessing procedural due process for maritime attachment, the court weighed the risk of erroneous deprivation against the strong governmental and commercial interests in preserving an effective security remedy for transitory maritime defendants.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Supplemental Rule B maritime attachment as constitutionally permissible in federal admiralty and concluded that ex parte garnishment of a defendant’s bank account, coupled with prompt post-seizure remedies, satisfied Fifth Amendment due process and supported continuing jurisdiction over the dispute.


Grand Bahama Petroleum Co. v. Canadian Transportation Agencies, Ltd., 450 F. Supp. 447 (W.D. Wash. 1978)