Jensen v. Rollinger
Sep 11, 2014OUTCOME: In our clients' favor, the Court DENIED Defendant Rollinger's Motion to vacate Rule B attachment pursuant to Rule E(4)
In a federal Admiralty Rule B action in the Western District of Texas, our clients attached IRAs held by defendant Rollinger in Texas, in lieu of arresting defendant's yacht laying in Panama. Defenda ... nt Rollinger moved to vacate the Rule B attachment on the grounds that IRAs are exempt from attachment and execution under Texas state law. The Court agreed with our analysis that federal law preempted state law in this case, and therefore approximately $400,000 in assets were subject to attachment under federal admiralty law, even though local state law exempted those funds. Case available at http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txwdce/5:2013cv01095/664523/56
