9 U.S.C. § 8
Proceedings begun by libel in admiralty and seizure of vessel or property
If the basis of jurisdiction be a cause of action otherwise justiciable in admiralty, then, notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the party claiming to be aggrieved may begin his proceeding hereunder by libel and seizure of the vessel or other property of the other party according to the usual course of admiralty proceedings, and the court shall then have jurisdiction to direct the parties to proceed with the arbitration and shall retain jurisdiction to enter its decree upon the award.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 108
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1927–2026 · leading case: ProShipLine Inc. v. Aspen Infrastructures Ltd., 609 F.3d 960 (9th Cir. 2010).
ProShipLine Inc. v. Aspen Infrastructures Ltd., 609 F.3d 960 (9th Cir. 2010). “On appeal to this court, Aspen offers a fourth reason that equitable vacatur was proper, arguing that ProShipLine and EP-Team violated 9 U.S.C. § 8 by seeking maritime attachment without diligently pursuing arbitration in Singapore.”
Petroleos Mexicanos Refinacion v. M/T King a (Ex-Tbilisi), 554 F.3d 99 (3rd Cir. 2009). “282 (1932) ("[ 9 U.S.C. § 8 ] does not contemplate `the vessel or other property,' which may be seized, as being the party to the arbitration agreement.”
E.A.S.T., Inc. Of Stamford, Connecticut v. M/v Alaia, Advance Co., Inc., Claimant-Appellant, 876 F.2d 1168 (5th Cir. 1989). “As a result of these findings, EAST rejected the ship and filed an in rem action, under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 8 , and Supplemental Admiralty Rule C, in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to compel arbitration under the charter…”
Fedmet Corp. v. M/V Buyalyk, 194 F.3d 674 (5th Cir. 1999). “See 9 U.S.C. § 8 . Specifically, Section 8 of the FAA provides: If the basis of jurisdiction be a cause of action otherwise justiciable in admiralty, then, notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the party claiming to be aggrieved may begin his proceeding hereunder by…”
Mar. Ventures Int'l, Inc. v. Caribbean Trading & Fid., Ltd., 689 F. Supp. 1340 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). “Plaintiff has also moved for an order authorizing issuance of process of attachment and garnishment pursuant to § 8 of the Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 8 , and Supplemental Admiralty Rule B(l), attaching all the property of the proposed additional defendants.”
Linea Naviera De Cabotaje, C.A. v. Mar Caribe De Navegacion, C.A., 169 F. Supp. 2d 1341 (M.D. Fla. 2001). “9 U.S.C. § 8 . 8 Therefore, Mar Caribe’s assertion this Court lacks jurisdiction over the parties is incorrect.”
Cunard S.S. Co. Ltd. v. Salen Reefer Servs. Ab, United Brands Co., Garnishee, 773 F.2d 452 (2d Cir. 1985). “On January 9, 1985, plaintiff-appellant, Cunard, commenced this action in the District Court for the Southern District of New York by obtaining an order of attachment against certain assets of Salen held by garnishee, United Brands Company, pursuant to the Arbitration Act, 9…”
Atlas Chartering Servs. Inc. v. World Trade Grp., Inc., 453 F. Supp. 861 (S.D.N.Y. 1978). “Under Section 8 of the Act, 9 U.S.C. § 8 , pre-arbitration attachment is permitted where, as here, “the basis of jurisdiction be a cause of action otherwise justiciable in admiralty.”
EAST, Inc. of Stamford, Conn. v. M/V ALAIA, 673 F. Supp. 796 (E.D. La. 1987). “Specifically with respect to maritime actions, section 8 of the Act, 9 U.S.C. § 8 , does not of itself confer an in rem right against a vessel.”
Adams v. Georgia Gulf Corp., 237 F.3d 538 (5th Cir. 2001). “After the denial of the motion to remand, Oldham 3 moved to stay proceedings pending the completion of arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act’s (“FAA”) mandatory stay provision, 9 U.S.C. § 8 . They hoped that once the arbitration proceedings concluded the case would be…”
Summit Packaging Sys., Inc. v. Kenyon & Kenyon, 273 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2001). “9 U.S.C. § 8 (emphasis added). Summit argues that this Court does not have jurisdiction over Kenyon’s appeal because the parties’ issues are not “referable to arbitration.”
Penn Tanker Co. of Delaware v. C.H.Z. Rolimpex, Warszawa, 199 F. Supp. 716 (S.D.N.Y. 1961). “Pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 8 , libelant began a proceeding in this Court on March 1, 1961, by filing a libel with a prayer for the issuance of process in personam with a writ of foreign attachment.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.