Alcoa Steamship Co., Inc. v. M/V Nordic Regent

• Decision Date: 17 January 1978
• Docket Number: No. 77 Civ. 84 (WCC).,77 Civ. 84 (WCC).
• Citation: 453 F. Supp. 10
• Parties: ALCOA STEAMSHIP COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. M/V NORDIC REGENT, her boilers, tackle, etc. in rem, and Norcross Shipping Co., Inc., as her owner, in personam, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

453 F. Supp. 10

ALCOA STEAMSHIP COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. M/V NORDIC REGENT, her boilers, tackle, etc. in rem, and Norcross Shipping Co., Inc., as her owner, in personam, Defendant.

No. 77 Civ. 84 (WCC).

United States District Court, S. D. New York.

January 17, 1978.

Haight, Gardner, Poor & Havens, New York City, for plaintiff; J. Ward O'Neill, Gordon W. Paulsen, Emil A. Kratovil, Jr., Edward J. Murphy, New York City, of counsel.

Walker & Corsa, New York City, for defendant; Hollis M. Walker, Jr., New York City, of counsel.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CONNER, District Judge:

This is an action to recover property damages sustained as the result of an accident on January 2, 1977 when the M/V Nordic Regent struck a pier owned by plaintiff Alcoa Steamship Company, Inc. and located at Tembladora, Trinidad, West Indies. Presently before this Court is a motion by defendant, Norcross Shipping Co., Inc., owner of the M/V Nordic Regent, to dismiss the complaint on grounds of forum non conveniens.

The power of a federal court to decline to exercise jurisdiction where the litigation can more appropriately be conducted in a foreign tribunal was established in Gulf Oil v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947), which sets forth the factors to be evaluated in deciding the instant motion. Concerning the private interest of the litigants, such factors include plaintiff's initial choice of forum; the relative ease of access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses; possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to the action; questions as to the enforceability of a judgment; relative advantages and obstacles to a fair trial; and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive. From the standpoint of the public interest, the Court may consider administrative difficulties that follow from court congestion; a local interest in having localized controversies decided at home; and avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflicts of laws and in law foreign to the forum.

In support of its motion, defendant points to the lack of connection between any event in this case and the Southern District of New York; indeed, it argues, the only relationship between the controversy and this forum is that the plaintiff is a New York corporation. Defendant contends that none of the witnesses on the issue of liability or damages resides in New York and that indeed most of the witnesses, including plaintiff's dock employees, non-party tugboat crew members, pilots and pilot station personnel, and defendant's witnesses on the cost of repairs to the pier, all reside in Trinidad and are not subject to process in New York; defendant also argues that it would be unable to implead the pilot's association —which it asserts may be liable for the accident—in this forum. Defendant further states that evidence relating to such factors as movement of tides, currents, winds and drafts is most accessible and can be more conveniently evaluated in Trinidad, and that a view of the pier may be necessary. Finally, defendant maintains that the courts of Trinidad are best equipped to apply the law of Trinidad, which defendant contends will govern this case.

In response, plaintiff points out that defendant is represented by a general agent, Anglo Nordic Shipping, Limited ("Anglo Nordic"), located in New York, and that on March 5, 1976 the M/V Nordic Regent and Anglo Nordic as her disponent or chartered owner entered into a charter party with plaintiff as charterer under which Anglo Nordic agreed to provide the services of the M/V Nordic Regent as an ore carrier. Plaintiff maintains that various terms of this agreement, including a stipulation that litigation arising out of the charter party may be conducted in New York and that New York law shall control such litigation make New York an appropriate if not mandatory forum for this litigation. Regardless of the applicability of the charter agreement, however, plaintiff argues that the facts of this case do not satisfy the requirement that "unless the balance of convenience is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed," Gulf Oil v. Gilbert, supra at 508, 67 S.Ct. at 843, and contends that the balance must be even stronger when the plaintiff is an American citizen and the alternative forum is a foreign one. Plaintiff maintains that this forum is more convenient because the repair and reconstruction of its Trinidad facility will be supervised by plaintiff's employees headquartered in Pittsburgh and carried out by an independent contractor located in New Orleans, Louisiana.¹ Plaintiff also offers to bring its dock employees to New York for deposition and trial. Plaintiff further argues that both defendant and the crew of the vessel—which is predominantly Italian—would be as inconvenienced by a trial in Trinidad as in New York, since defendant is a "completely international operation" and the crew will either be at sea or in Italy. Finally, plaintiff maintains that its recovery may be substantially restricted under the applicable limitation of liability law of Trinidad.

This Court is persuaded that the lack of a substantial nexus between this controversy and the Southern District of New York combined with the inconvenience and possible prejudice to the defendant resulting from retention of jurisdiction here— which substantially outweigh any inconvenience plaintiff may suffer—renders this an...