## Facts

- Heidmar, Inc. and Heidenreich Marine, Inc. (Heidmar) negotiated a time charter in May 1995 with Italian shipowner Anomina Ravennate di Armamento S.p.A. (Ravennate) for the tanker M/V *Pegasus Erre*.
- The charter required the vessel to be oil-tight, fit to carry petroleum products, and to satisfy specified inspection/approval requirements.
- The charter included English choice-of-law and a London arbitration clause.
- Heidmar took delivery in November 1995 and redelivered the vessel early in October 1996, asserting unfitness; Ravennate denied breach and claimed Heidmar breached by early redelivery.
- The parties commenced London arbitration under the charter.
- While arbitration was pending, Heidmar filed an admiralty action in the Southern District of Texas (in rem against the vessel and in personam against Ravennate) and sought vessel arrest/attachment as security.
- The vessel was arrested in Port Arthur, Texas, and Ravennate obtained release by posting security via a letter of undertaking/bond.
- Ravennate moved to vacate the attachment, arguing it could be “found within the district” under Supplemental Rule B.
- The district court vacated the attachment, ordered release of the security, and stayed the case pending arbitration; Heidmar appealed.

## Issues

1. For Supplemental Rule B, is a defendant “found within the district” based on the defendant’s presence at the time of seizure, or at the time the complaint is filed and attachment is sought?
2. Under the Fifth Circuit’s two-part test, was Ravennate “found within the district” when Heidmar filed—i.e., (a) amenable to service of process and (b) subject to personal jurisdiction—so as to bar Rule B attachment?

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the order vacating the attachment and releasing the security, and remanded.
- The court held Rule B’s “found within the district” inquiry is assessed at the time of filing and seeking attachment, not at the time of seizure.
- Ravennate was not “found within the district” when Heidmar filed because it was not amenable to service in the district and was not clearly subject to personal jurisdiction there at that time.
- The district court therefore erred in vacating the attachment and dissolving the posted security.

## Legal Principles

- Under Supplemental Rule B in the Fifth Circuit, a defendant is “found within the district” only if (1) it can be served with process in the district and (2) it is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district.
- The “found within the district” determination is made as of the time the plaintiff files the complaint and requests attachment, not based on later events such as the defendant’s or property’s later presence when seizure occurs.
- Rule B’s function includes providing security and a jurisdictional basis where a maritime defendant’s local availability for service and jurisdiction is absent, uncertain, or transitory at suit initiation.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit reinstated the maritime attachment because Rule B turns on the defendant’s amenability to service and personal jurisdiction at the time suit is filed; Ravennate’s later presence connected to the vessel’s seizure could not retroactively defeat attachment or dissolve the security.


Heidmar, Inc. v. Anomina Ravennate di Armamento S.p.A. of Ravenna, 132 F.3d 264 (5th Cir. 1998)