Opinion
Civil Action No. 00-2236 SECTION "F"
October 30, 2000
MINUTE ENTRY
Before the Court is Trans-World Aluminum's (TWA) Motion to Assess Damages for Wrongful Attachment. For the reasons that follow, the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
On July 30, 2000, Base Metal filed this lawsuit seeking to enforce an arbitration award against the defendant that it obtained in an arbitration court in Moscow. In an attempt to satisfy the award, plaintiff obtained a writ from the Court to attach a cargo of aluminum T-bars which were allegedly manufactured by the defendant. Trans-World Aluminum(TWA) subsequently challenged the propriety of the attachment and filed a motion to dissolve the writ of attachment and to assess damages for wrongful attachment. On August 11, 2000, the plaintiff voluntarily released the cargo. TWA now files this motion to assess damages.
TWA asserted ownership over the cargo at issue.
In this motion, TWA asks the Court to assess the damages it sustained due to plaintiff's attachment of the cargo. Although it is titled as a Motion for Assessment of Damages for Wrongful Attachment, the Court treats this motion as a motion for summary judgment on the issue of damages. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 instructs that summary judgment is proper if the record discloses no genuine issue as to any material fact such that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. No genuine issue of fact exists if the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio., 475 U.S. 574, 586(1986). A genuine issue of fact exists only "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party."Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248(1986).
The Court emphasizes that the mere argued existence of a factual dispute does not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion. See id. Therefore, "[i]f the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative," summary judgment is appropriate. Id. at 249-50 (citations omitted). Summary judgment is also proper if the party opposing the motion fails to establish an essential element of his case.See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23(1986). In this regard, the nonmoving party must do more than simply deny the allegations raised by the moving party. See Donaghey v. Ocean Drilling Exploration Co., 974 F.2d 646, 649 (5th Cir. 1992). Rather, he must come forward with competent evidence, such as affidavits or depositions, to buttress his claims. Id. Hearsay evidence and unsworn documents do not qualify as competent opposing evidence. Martin v. John W. Stone Oil Distrib., Inc., 819 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 1987). Finally, in evaluating the summary judgment motion, the court must read the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255.
TWA asserts that it is entitled to damages as a result of plaintiff's wrongful attachment. Plaintiff maintains that there has been no determination that the attachment was wrongful, and therefore, TWA is not entitled to damages without an evidentiary hearing. Alternatively, the plaintiff asserts that if it is liable for damages, the Court must have an evidentiary hearing because the amount of damages cannot be determined from the evidence submitted by TWA.
The second paragraph of Article 3506 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure provides that:
The court may allow damages for the wrongful issuance of a writ of attachment or of sequestration on a motion to dissolve, or on a re-conventional demand. Attorney's fees for the services rendered in connection with the dissolution of the writ may be included as an element of damages whether the writ is dissolved on motion or after trial on the merits.
This provision allows a party to collect damages and attorney's fees when a writ of attachment is wrongfully issued. The Court now addresses the propriety of the plaintiff's attachment.
On August 11, 2000, the plaintiff voluntarily released the attached cargo. The release, without any explanation, came shortly after the Court set TWA's motion to dissolve for expedited hearing. The Court finds that as a matter of Louisiana law, the attachment was wrongful and that TWA is entitled to damages under Article 3506. Steinhardt v. Leman, 6 So. 665 (La. 1889) (when attachment voluntarily dismissed without explanation, the attachment is rendered wrongful and attaching party is liable for damages); Duhon v. Buckley, 161 So.2d 301, 306-7 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1964) (court allowed reasonable attorney's fees after attachment voluntarily dismissed because defendant hired an attorney, filed pleadings and provoked a hearing in Court before the attachment was voluntarily dissolved).
The Court notes that although the plaintiff amended its original complaint to name TWA as a defendant, since the filing of this motion, plaintiff has dismissed both the original and amended complaint.
The Court finds that plaintiff's attempt to distinguish these cases is without merit.
Having determined that TWA is entitled to damages, the Court now turns to the amount of damages sustained by TWA as a result of the wrongful attachment. Based upon the record, the memoranda and the evidence submitted by the parties, the Court finds that there are genuine issues of material fact concerning the amount of damages. Thus, the Court finds it necessary to conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve these issues.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED: that TWA's Motion for Assessment of Damages is GRANTED with respect to the propriety of the attachment. The motion is DENIED as to the amount of damages.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: that this case is referred to the magistrate to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of damages to which TWA is entitled under La.C.C.P. Art. 3506 as a result of the wrongful attachment.