## Facts

- Ralph Louring, a Connecticut resident, sued Kuwait Boulder Shipping Co. (Kuwait Boulder), a corporation organized under Kuwait law with its principal place of business in Kuwait, over alleged nonpayment of money.
- To obtain jurisdiction over Kuwait Boulder, Louring applied for a Connecticut prejudgment remedy under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-278e, seeking to garnish a debt owed to Kuwait Boulder by Boulder Shipping Company (Boulder Shipping), a Connecticut corporation that maintained an office in Greenwich.
- A Connecticut Superior Court judge signed an order authorizing issuance of the writ, summons, and complaint and authorizing service of those papers (and the application) on the garnishee; the order also included a paragraph referencing a hearing on the prejudgment-remedy application, but the hearing date was left blank.
- Copies of the documents were mailed to Kuwait Boulder.
- Kuwait Boulder removed the case to federal court and moved to dissolve the garnishment and dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing (among other things) that the garnishment lacked proper authorization, the application relied on an affidavit from plaintiff’s counsel, and service was insufficient.
- Deposition testimony showed that Kuwait Boulder’s chief executive officer had visited Boulder Shipping’s Connecticut office on several occasions and that Boulder Shipping acted as Kuwait Boulder’s agent.
- After argument on the jurisdictional motion, Louring moved for judgment, claiming Kuwait Boulder had submitted to the court’s jurisdiction but had not answered the complaint.

## Issues

1. Whether the Connecticut prejudgment garnishment should be dissolved as procedurally improper because of alleged defects in judicial authorization, supporting papers, or service.
2. Whether the court could exercise personal jurisdiction over Kuwait Boulder based on garnishment of a debt owed in Connecticut and Kuwait Boulder’s contacts with Connecticut through Boulder Shipping and related activities.
3. Whether an alleged defect in service on the garnishee could be asserted by the foreign defendant, or instead was a matter the garnishee could waive.
4. Whether removal and motion practice aimed at contesting jurisdiction amounted to submission to jurisdiction supporting judgment for failure to answer.

## Decision

- The court denied Kuwait Boulder’s request to dissolve the garnishment, finding the record did not support the claimed defects in judicial authorization or in the supporting affidavit materials.
- The court rejected the service-based challenge to the garnishment to the extent it concerned a defect that was waived by the garnishee and was not available to Kuwait Boulder as a basis to dissolve the attachment.
- The court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding that Kuwait Boulder had sufficient Connecticut contacts connected to the garnished debt and relationship with the Connecticut agent.
- The court denied Louring’s motion for judgment based on “submission” to jurisdiction, treating Kuwait Boulder’s actions as a limited appearance to contest jurisdiction rather than consent to adjudication on the merits.

## Legal Principles

- Connecticut’s prejudgment remedy statute (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-278e) permits garnishment/attachment procedures, and a foreign defendant’s attempt to dissolve the remedy fails where the record shows the required authorization and support.
- A debt owed by an in-state garnishee may be attached to obtain a jurisdictional foothold, and jurisdiction is proper when the defendant’s forum contacts tied to the debt and relationship with the garnishee satisfy due process.
- Contacts supporting jurisdiction can include an agency relationship with an in-state company and repeated visits by corporate leadership to the agent’s in-state office when those contacts relate to the transaction or relationship giving rise to the garnished debt.
- Certain defects in service or procedure primarily protect the garnishee and can be waived by the garnishee; the principal defendant generally cannot invoke those waived objections to defeat the attachment.
- Removing a case to federal court and filing motions contesting jurisdiction and the prejudgment remedy does not, without more, constitute a general appearance or consent to personal jurisdiction for purposes of entering judgment on the merits.

## Conclusion

The district court upheld a Connecticut prejudgment garnishment of a debt owed by a Connecticut company to a Kuwait corporation and held that Kuwait Boulder’s Connecticut-related contacts through its agent and executive visits supported personal jurisdiction; it also treated any service defect affecting the garnishee as waivable and waived, and it declined to enter judgment based on the defendant’s jurisdictional litigation conduct.


Louring v. Kuwait Boulder Shipping Co., 455 F. Supp. 630 (1977)