Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. v. Republic of Haiti
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-01046
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Preble-Rish Haiti v. Republic of Haiti, Judge Broderick declined to issue maritime-attachment process and ordered the Clerk to close the case.
Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A., the Republic of Haiti, Natixis, and the Central Bank of Haiti were affected by the court’s decision not to issue the requested maritime-attachment and garnishment process and to close the case.
What happened
Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. asked the court to issue legal process allowing maritime attachment and garnishment involving Natixis and the Central Bank of Haiti. The court held a status conference and reviewed submissions from the parties and the purported garnishees.
The court found that related proceedings had already resolved important issues, including whether the defendants maintained an account at Natixis and whether the Central Bank of Haiti’s account was protected from attachment. It also found that the plaintiff’s supporting declaration was not sworn under penalty of perjury and did not provide enough support to overcome those earlier decisions.
Judge Broderick ordered that the requested attachment and garnishment process, as well as the proposed order directing its issuance, would not issue. He also directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. v. Republic of Haiti · No. 1:22-cv-01046
- Vernon Broderick
- Mar. 18, 2022
Background
Preble-Rish Haiti, S.A. applied for a writ of process of maritime attachment and garnishments. The application concerned Natixis and the Central Bank of Haiti, which the order calls the “Purported Garnishees.” The plaintiff also submitted a proposed order directing the Clerk to issue the process and appointing a process server.
Judge Broderick held a status conference on March 17, 2022, attended by the plaintiff and the purported garnishees. After hearing from them and reviewing letters submitted before the conference, he informed the parties that he would not issue the requested process.
Reasons for the Decision
The court relied in part on rulings in two related proceedings before Judge P. Kevin Castel. In the first proceeding, Judge Castel determined that the defendants did not maintain a bank account at Natixis and were not known clients of Natixis. In the second, Judge Castel allowed intervention and vacated an earlier attachment of the Central Bank of Haiti’s account, ruling that the account was immune from attachment under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The opinion states that the second proceeding was on appeal and fully briefed before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The court also found that the plaintiff’s application relied on a declaration that was not sworn under penalty of perjury. The declaration was based only on the declarant’s claimed knowledge of the market. Judge Broderick concluded that this showing was insufficient to overcome Judge Castel’s earlier decisions or to establish that the purported garnishees were or had been financing the transactions at issue, or that circumstances had changed.
Ruling
The court ordered that the plaintiff’s application for the writ of process and its proposed order would not issue. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. This was a ruling on the requested attachment and garnishment process, not a decision resolving the parties’ underlying transaction-related dispute on its merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.