MEMORANDUM ORDER

JED RAKOFF, District Judge

On February 6, 2008, the Court signed an order directing the Clerk to issue process of maritime attachment and garnishment in the above-captioned case. Defendant Onego Shipping Chartering B.V. ("Onego B.V.") then moved, pursuant to Rule E(4)(f) of the Supplemental Rules For Admiralty or Maritime Claims of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Supplemental Rules"), to vacate the attachment. The Court received briefing from the parties and held oral argument on March 5, 2008. By Order dated March 12, 2008, the Court granted the motion. This Memorandum Order sets forth the reasons for the March 12 Order and directs counsel to proceed with their case or to dismiss it.

A maritime attachment is proper if a defendant is not "found within the district." Fed. Rule Civ. P. Supp. Rule B(1)(a). To obtain an attachment under Rule B, a plaintiff must submit and affidavit stating that, to the best of its knowledge, "the defendant cannot be found within the judicial district." Aqua Stoli Shipping Ltd. v. Gardner Smith Pty Ltd., 460 F.3d 434, 438 (2d Cir. 2006). Once property is attached, a defendant can move to vacate the attachment under Rule E(4)(f), which provides: "[w]henever property is arrested or attached, any person claiming an interest in it shall be entitled to a prompt hearing at which the plaintiff shall be required to show why the arrest or attachment should not be vacated or other relief granted consistent with these rules."

A district court "must vacate an attachment if the plaintiff fails to sustain his burden of showing that he has satisfied the requirements of Rules B and E." Aqua Stoli, 460 F.3d at 445. In addition, a district court "may vacate the attachment if the defendant shows at the Rule E hearing that 1) the defendant is subject to suit in a convenient adjacent jurisdiction; 2) the plaintiff could obtain in personam jurisdiction over the defendant in the district where the plaintiff is located; or 3) the plaintiff has already obtained sufficient security for the potential judgment, by attachment or otherwise." Id. While the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the attachment complied with the requirements of Rules B and E, the burden is on the defendant to establish any equitable grounds for vacatur. Id. at 445 n. 5.

In this case, defendant argues that vacatur is appropriate because it can be found in a convenient adjacent jurisdiction, namely, the District of New Jersey. Whether or not a defendant is "found" within a district for purposes of Rule B is analyzed under a two pronged inquiry: first, whether the defendant is found in the district in terms of jurisdiction, and second, whether the defendant is found in the district in terms of service of process. See Seawind Compania, S.A. v. Crescent Line, Inc., 320 F.2d 580, 582 (2d Cir. 1963). These are two separate inquiries. See Integrated Container Service, Inc. v. Starlines Container Shipping, Ltd., 476 F.Supp. 119, 122 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).

Here, defendant, Onego B.V., argues that it is found in the district of New Jersey under both prongs of the test because of its relationship with Onego Shipping, Inc. ("Onego Inc."), which is headquartered and operates a continuous and systematic business in Hoboken, New Jersey.

As to the first prong, where a defendant is "found" for jurisdictional purposes depends on whether the defendant is "engaged in sufficient activity in the district" to subject it toin personam jurisdiction. VTT Vulcan Petroleum, S.A. v. Langham-Hill Petroleum, Inc., 684 F.Supp. 389, 390 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (internal quotation marks omitted). A defendant can be subject to in personam jurisdiction in a district only if the defendant maintains sufficient contacts with the forum state (in this case, New Jersey) so that a finding of jurisdiction would not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington Office of Unemployment Comp. Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).

However, "[a] non-resident corporation may be subject to jurisdiction, on a general or specific basis, depending on the contacts and actions of its agents." Automated Salvage Transp., Inc. v. NV Koninklijke KNP BT, 1997 WL 576402, *22 (D.N.J. Sept. 12, 1997). See also Grand Entm't Group, Ltd. v. Star Media Sales, Inc., 988 F.2d 476, 483 (3d Cir. 1993) ("[a]ctivities of a party's agent may count toward the minimum contacts necessary to support jurisdiction"); Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1362 (9th Cir. 1990) ("[f]or purposes of personal jurisdiction, the actions of an agent are attributable to the principal"); Green v. Compania De Navigacion Isabella, Ltd., 26 F.R.D. 616, 617-18 (S.D.N.Y. 1960) (holding that regular and continuous course of business conducted by corporation in New York on behalf of foreign vessel owner was sufficient to (1) establish that vessel owner was subject to personal jurisdiction in New York, and (2) establish that corporation was a managing or general agent of foreign vessel owner for purpose of service of process).

In this case, defendant has succeeded in showing that Onego Inc., which has its principal place of business in Hoboken, New Jersey and conducts a continuing course of business in that state, is defendant's agent, such that the actions of Onego Inc. are imputed to Onego B.V. and Onego B.V. is subject to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey. Thus, Marcel van Eijsden, the Managing Director of Onego B.V., declares under oath that Onego B.V. is an international shipping company with its principal place of business in The Netherlands and branch offices in St. Petersburg, Russia and Hoboken, New Jersey. Declaration of Marcel van Eijsden in Support of Motion to Vacate Process of Maritime Attachment dated February 18, 2008 ("van Eijsden Decl.") ¶ 5, 7-8. While the branch offices are separate corporate entities, established pursuant to the laws of their domicile countries, id. ¶ 9, Onego Inc. acts as an agent for Onego B.V. Indeed Onego Inc. was established to give Onego B.V. a closer presence to its shippers and shipping clients in the Americas and the Caribbean. Id. ¶ 13. The office charters and operates vessels in the name of and on behalf of Onego B.V. and is responsible for the operations of 6-8 ships under charter to Onego B.V. trading in the Americas. Id. ¶ 15. In addition to chartering vessels for Onego B.V., Onego Inc. also, inter alia, solicits freight business; books and contracts for the carriage of cargo; arranges for necessaries, stevedores and surveyors; collects and remits hires and/or freights and attends to customs services; and files Electronic Notice of Arrival (e-NOA/D) and Sea Automated Manifest Systems (Sea AMS) — all for Onego B.V. and Onego B.V. vessels. Id. ¶ 16.

This agency relationship is confirmed by the Onego B.V. website. According to the website, Onego Shipping is an international shipping company with offices in The Netherlands, Russia and Hoboken, which are all involved in "chartering and operations of [the] company fleet." See Exhibit 2 to Affidavit of Owen F. Duffy in Support of Motion to Vacate Process of Maritime Attachment dated February 15, 2008 ("Duffy Aff."). The website also states that Onego Shipping Inc. controls a fleet of 6-8 company vessels trading in the Americas, "concentrates . . . on developing relationships with local clients and customers both for chartering and operations," and has taken control of AMS and e-NOA/D filing for the entire company fleet.Id.

Moreover, a Ship Management Agreement signed by Onego B.V. and Onego Inc. in March 2006 labels Onego Inc. as "Manager" and Onego B.V. as "Owner" of various vessels. See Exhibit A. to Affidavit of Owen F. Duffy in Support of Motion to Vacate Process of Maritime Attachment dated February 27, 2008 ("Second Duffy Aff."). The form contract states that Onego Inc. undertakes to use its best endeavors to provide management services on behalf of Onego B.V. and to "promote the interests of [Onego B.V.]." Id. § 2.2. The contract also specifies that Onego Inc. is to act as agent for Onego B.V. in undertaking a variety of services various related to insurance, freight management, accounting, chartering, bunkering and operation. Id. § 2.3.

In opposition to all this, plaintiff has failed to introduce any material evidence to call into question the finding that Onego Inc. is the agent of Onego B.V. Therefore, the Court finds that Onego B.V. is subject to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey for purposes of Supplemental Rules B and E.

Turning to the second prong of the test, Onego B.V. is also "found" in the district of New Jersey for purposes of service of process. According to Rule 4(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, service upon a corporation shall be effected by service on "an officer, a managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process." Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(h)(1)(B). See also Seawind, 320 F.2d at 582 (holding that defendant could be found within the district for service of process because defendant had a managing agent within the district). When a company's managing or general agent is present in the district, it is "immaterial that [the agent] is not expressly authorized by [defendant] to accept service of process on its behalf." Proshipline, Inc. v. M/V Beluga Revolution, 2007 WL 4481101, *1 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 18, 2007).

All of the information discussed above establishes that Onego Inc. is the general agent of Onego B.V. and Onego B.V. is therefore found in the District of New Jersey for purposes of service of process. See Restatement (Third) of Agency § 2.01 cmt. d (a general agent "has authority to conduct a series of transactions" and "services the principal on an ongoing as opposed to an episodic basis"); Proshipline, 2007 WL 4481101 at *1 (holding that corporation was a general agent of defendant where it "continually and openly performed services . . . including, but not limited to, booking and contracting for cargo, paying for necessaries, arranging for stevedores and surveyors, collecting for and dispersing monies to [defendant], and handling needed customs services").

Because Onego B.V. is found in the district of New Jersey for purposes of both in personam jurisdiction and service of process, under Aqua Stoli this Court may vacate the attachment as long as New Jersey is a convenient adjacent jurisdiction to the Southern District of New York. In Aqua Stoli, the Second Circuit explained that:

vacatur may be warranted when the defendant can show that it would be subject to in personam jurisdiction in another jurisdiction convenient to the plaintiff. The concept of convenience, however, is a narrowly circumscribed one: A district court may vacate a maritime attachment only if the defendant would be subject to an in personam lawsuit in a jurisdiction adjacent to the one in which the attachment proceedings were brought. An across the river case where, for example, assets are attached in the Eastern District but the defendant is located in the Southern District is a paradigmatic example of a case where an attachment should be vacated.

The instant case is just such a "paradigmatic," "across the river" case where the attachment should be vacated. Defendant is subject to in personam jurisdiction in the District of New Jersey, which is across the Hudson River from the Southern District of New York. Moreover, plaintiff, a foreign business authorized under the laws of a foreign country with an address in the Marshall Islands, see Verified Complaint ¶ 2, provides no evidence that New Jersey is any less convenient to it than New York.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court, by Order dated March 12, 2008, vacated the maritime attachment. Counsel are now directed to jointly phone chambers at 11:00 a.m. on April 2, 2008 to advise the Court whether there is any remaining reason to proceed with this case here or whether, instead, final judgment should be entered dismissing the case.

SO ORDERED.