United States v. J. Tirocchi & Sons, Inc.
Decision Date | 26 January 1960 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 2572. |
Citation | 180 F. Supp. 645 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. J. TIROCCHI & SONS, INC., Vincent Tirocchi and Valentino Tirocchi. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island |
Joseph Mainelli, U. S. Atty., Samuel S. Tanzi, Asst. U. S. Atty., Providence, R. I., for plaintiff.
Jacob S. Temkin, Samuel Olevson, Benedetto A. Cerilli, Providence, R. I., for defendants.
This is an action brought by the United States pursuant to the provisions of 40 U.S.C.A. § 489.1 Jurisdiction of this Court to hear, try and determine this action exists under the provisions of 40 U.S.C.A. § 489(c).
In addition to jurisdictional averments, the plaintiff's complaint alleges that "during the years 1954 through 1959, inclusive, the defendants, together with one Donald J. Boisvert, used and engaged in and caused to be used and engaged in, and entered into an agreement, combination and conspiracy to use and engage in a fraudulent trick, scheme and device for the purpose of securing and obtaining surplus property from the United States to which they were not entitled"; and that said surplus property therein described had a value in excess of $200,000. The complaint prays for relief as provided in 40 U.S.C.A. § 489.
Upon the filing of said complaint, the plaintiff obtained a writ of attachment from the Clerk of this Court directing the attachment of the real and personal estate of each of the defendants. In compliance with the provisions thereof, the United States Marshal for this District promptly attached certain real and personal estate belonging to each of the defendants. Subsequently, on December 7, 1959, the defendants moved that said attachments be dissolved, that said writ of attachment be quashed and that all the property attached thereunder be released to the defendants. This motion was consolidated for hearing with like motions filed in three similar actions instituted by the plaintiff against other defendants and was heard by me on December 14, 1959. At the conclusion of said hearing I reserved decision on all of said motions pending consideration of memoranda to be filed by counsel.
The availability of the remedy of attachment in this action is governed by the provisions of Rule 64 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., which provides as follows:
It is conceded by the plaintiff that there is no statute of the United States which grants the remedy of attachment in the instant action. Therefore, under Rule 64, I must look to the law of Rhode Island to determine the validity of said attachments. In this regard, three separate provisions of the Rhode Island statutes must be noted.2 First, 2 Gen.Laws R.I. (1956), § 10-5-2 provides as follows:
Secondly, 2 Gen.Laws R.I. (1956), § 10-5-5 provides as follows:
And finally, 2 Gen.Laws R.I. (1956), § 10-5-6 provides as follows:
Two of the foregoing statutory provisions require little discussion, as it is clear that neither of them is applicable in the context of this case. There is no allegation that any of the defendants is a nonresident of the State of Rhode Island. Hence, § 10-5-6 can afford no basis for the validity of said attachment. Similarly, § 10-5-5 by its terms provides that attachments in proceedings in equity may be had only after the Court, upon motion duly made, has entered an order granting a writ of attachment. No such motion was ever filed here, nor was any such order entered in this action. The plaintiff's contention that the writ of attachment issued by the Clerk of this Court is equally sufficient in legal or equitable proceedings is untenable. The distinction as to the availability of the remedy of attachment under Rhode Island law in proceedings in equity is clearly pointed out by the Supreme Court of Rhode Island in Marsh v. Moore, 1932, 52 R.I. 458, at page 461, 161 A. 227, at page 228, where Chief Justice Stearns, speaking for the Court, held:
The fact that this is a federal, not a state, tribunal does not obviate the requirement in equitable proceedings that a motion for the issuance of a writ of attachment be made by a complainant and that the Court exercise its discretion with reference to the issuance of such writ. Rule 64 by its terms provides expressly that "all remedies providing for seizure of person or property * * * are available under the circumstances and in the manner provided by the law of the state in which the district court is held." And see Chappell & Co. v. Haddad, D.C.Mass.1940, 1 F.R.D. 221. Writs of attachment in proceedings in equity are not available under the law of Rhode Island in the absence of an affirmative exercise of judicial discretion. Thus even if the complaint in this action can be construed as alleging a claim or claims cognizable in equity—a question which it is not necessary for me to decide here—it is clear that the writ issued in this action was not issued in accordance with the provisions of § 10-5-5.
The only substantial question presented by the instant motion is whether or not the issuance of said writ of attachment was authorized by the provisions of § 10-5-2. The test is whether or not the instant complaint states a cause of action of the nature in which said § 10-5-2 makes provision for attachment.
The defendants contend that under § 10-5-2 a writ of attachment is not available when the cause of action is one sounding in tort. On the other hand, the plaintiff argues that said sectio...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v. Caramadre
...involving an out-of-state resident. Martin v. Lincoln Bar, Inc., 622 A.2d 464, 468 (R.I. 1993) (quoting United States v. J. Tirocchi & Sons, Inc., 180 F. Supp. 645, 650 (D.R.I. 1960)). Plaintiffs are also moving for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Caramadre from moving any of ADM's asset......
-
Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v. Caramadre
...action sounding in tort only against a nonresident having property within the state. See United States v. J. Tirocchi & Sons, Inc., 180 F. Supp. 645, 647 (D.R.I. 1960). In addition, based on their claim of unjust enrichment, Plaintiffs also contend that attachment should issue pursuant to R......
-
Martin v. Lincoln Bar, Inc.
...52 R.I. 458, 459, 161 A. 227, 228 (1932); Mainz v. Lederer, 24 R.I. 23, 25-26, 51 A. 1044, 1045 (1902). In United States v. J. Tirocchi & Sons, Inc., 180 F.Supp. 645 (D.R.I.1960), the Federal District Court in Rhode Island, interpreting Rhode Island law, reaffirmed this principle by holding......
-
Vasquez v. Sportsman's Inn, Inc.
...of action is one sounding in tort.” Martin v. Lincoln Bar, Inc., 622 A.2d 464, 466 (R.I.1993) (quoting United States v. J. Tirocchi & Sons, Inc., 180 F.Supp. 645, 650 (D.R.I.1960)). 9. While this appeal has been pending, DLM, Inc. sold the property, after authorization from the trial justic......