Zipfel v. Halliburton Co., s. 86-1815

Decision Date26 January 1988
Docket Number86-1832,86-1834,Nos. 86-1815,s. 86-1815
Citation832 F.2d 1477
Parties, 1988 A.M.C. 2106 Shereen Ramona ZIPFEL, Individually and as Administratrix of Ian Charles Zipfel, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HALLIBURTON COMPANY; Atlantic Richfield Company; Crowley Maritime Corporation; Brinkerhoff Maritime Drilling, Inc.; Continental Oil Company (Conoco, Inc.); Hudson Bay Oil & Gas Company, Ltd.; Hudbay Oil, Ltd. (Indonesia); Brinkerhoff Maritime Drilling, Ptd, Ltd.; Hudbay Oil (Malacca), Ltd.; Dome Petroleum, Ltd.; Dome Petroleum Corporation; Arco Oil and Gas Corporation; PT Airfast Services Indonesia; and Exquisitor Helicopter Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. Ten Fong CRAIG, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of William Henry Craig, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY; Crowley Maritime Corporation; Brinkerhoff Maritime Drilling, Inc.; Continental Oil Company (Conoco, Inc.); Hudson Bay Oil & Gas Company, Ltd.; Hudbay Oil, Ltd. (Indonesia); Brinkerhoff Maritime Drilling, S.A.; Brinkerhoff Maritime Drilling, Pte, Ltd.; Hudbay Oil (Malacca), Ltd.; Dome Petroleum Ltd.; Dome Petroleum Corporation; PT Airfast Services Indonesia; and Exquisitor Helicopter Corporation, Defendants- Appellees. Vyner Gerard ALBUQUERQUE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL, INC.; Oceaneering International, SDN, BHD.; Halliburton Company; Atlantic Richfield Company; Crowley Maritime Corporation, Brinkerhoff Maritime Drilling, Inc.; Continental Oil Company (Conoco, Inc.); Hudson Bay Oil & Gas Company, Ltd.; Hudbay Oil, Ltd. (Indonesia); Brinkerhoff Maritime Drilling, PTE, Ltd. Hudbay Oil (Malacca), Ltd.; Dome Petroleum, Ltd.; Dome Petroleum Corporation; Arco Oil and Gas Corporation; PT Airfast Services Indonesia; and Exquisitor Helicopter Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. Chan Luck CHEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. McCLELLAND ENGINEERS, INC.; McClelland Engineers, S.A.; McClelland Engineers SDN. BHD.; Halliburton Company; Atlantic Richfield Company; Crowley Maritime Corporation; Brinkerhoff Maritime Drilling, Inc.; C
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Benton Musselwhite, Houston, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Earnest N. Reddick, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants-appellees Crowley Maritime Corp., Brinkerhoff Maritime Drilling Corp., Brinkerhoff Maritime Drilling Corp., S.A., and Brinkerhoff Maritime Drilling Corp. PTE, LTD.

Graydon S. Staring, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellee Halliburton Co.

Steven M. Perl, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellee McClelland Engineers, Inc.

Elliot L. Bien, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellee Oceaneering Intern., Inc.

James M. Derr, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellees Atlantic Richfield Co. and Arco Oil & Gas Corp.

Robert J. Finan, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellee Conoco, Inc.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Before SCHROEDER, WIGGINS and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.

AMENDED OPINION

DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judge.

These related but unconsolidated actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by or on behalf of American and foreign seamen who were killed or injured in an air crash in Indonesia. The actions We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291. We affirm the district court's dismissal of the foreign seamen's claims. We reverse the dismissal of the claim filed on behalf of the deceased American seaman. We vacate that part of the permanent injunction enjoining the foreign seamen from prosecuting their claims in state court. We modify and affirm the grant of the permanent injunction as it pertains to the claim filed on behalf of the American seaman.

                were filed under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. Sec. 688, the Shipowners Liability (Sick and Injured Seamen) Convention of 1936, 54 Stat. 1693, general maritime law, and state law.  Motions to dismiss the actions on the ground of forum non conveniens were filed and denied.  Upon reconsideration, another judge of the same court granted the motions and dismissed all of the cases, subject to conditions.    Sherrill v. Brinkerhoff Maritime Drilling, 615 F.Supp. 1021 (N.D.Cal.1985).  The dismissal order was filed August 12, 1985.  It provided in part that the order would become final "as to any plaintiff upon that plaintiff's failure to have filed a new action [in Indonesia or Singapore] upon the expiration of ninety days from the date of filing this order."    No plaintiff filed such an action.  Instead, a parallel Texas state court action which some of the plaintiffs had previously filed was reactivated.  The district court then restrained, and later permanently enjoined, the plaintiffs and their attorneys from prosecuting any action arising out of the air crash in any court in the United States.  This permanent injunction was included in a final judgment which the district court entered January 31, 1986.  The final judgment dismissed all of the plaintiffs' actions, unconditionally, on the ground of forum non conveniens.    A number of the cases originally filed were settled.  Five cases remain, and are involved in this appeal
                
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

The plaintiffs' claims arise out of a 1981 airplane crash at Simpang Tiga Airport in Indonesia. The airplane was operated by P.T. Airfast Services, an Indonesian corporation, and chartered by Hudbay Oil, an Indonesian subsidiary of a Canadian corporation. At the time of the crash, the airplane was transporting crew members of the oil drilling vessel, Brinkeroff I, from Singapore to Indonesia, where the crew members were to be flown by helicopter to the vessel. The Brinkerhoff I is an American flag vessel. For approximately nineteen months prior to the crash, this vessel had operated in Far Eastern waters near Indonesia and Singapore. As the district court observed:

It is not disputed that the operative facts on which liability and damages are premised occurred in Indonesia, and to a lesser extent, in Singapore. These include the maintenance and operation of the aircraft by Airfast, the chartering of the aircraft by Hudbay, and the actions of the crew and the Indonesian air traffic controllers. Eye witnesses and other knowledgeable persons are located there. Records and physical evidence relating to the operation and crash of the aircraft, the activities of the defendants, the injuries suffered by plaintiffs, and the post-accident investigation are also located there. It may be, as plaintiffs contend, that other evidence is scattered around the world, but none of it is shown to be located in this district. That the bulk of it is located in Singapore or Indonesia is demonstrated by plaintiffs' consolidated deposition notice ...

Sherrill, 615 F.Supp. at 1031-32.

The Brinkerhoff I is owned by Brinkerhoff Maritime Drilling Corporation ("BMD"), a Delaware corporation with home offices in San Francisco. BMD's base of corporate operations was San Francisco, California, and the Brinkerhoff I's base of operations was either Singapore or Indonesia, or both. 1 The crew members The cases were originally assigned to District Judge Aguilar. The defendants moved to dismiss all of the actions on the ground of forum non conveniens. Judge Aguilar concluded that American law applied to all of the cases and denied the motions. The cases were subsequently reassigned to District Judge Schwarzer. The defendants renewed their forum non conveniens motions. Judge Schwarzer concluded that American law, and consequently the Jones Act, applied only to the claim of the American crew member, and foreign law applied to the claims of the foreign crew members. He then dismissed all of the cases on the ground of forum non conveniens, subject to conditions. 2 The permanent injunction and final judgment of dismissal followed.

whose claims are involved in this appeal were employees, respectively, of some of the defendants. BMD employed Grunke and decedent Craig; the district court found that Zipfel was employed by Halliburton Ltd., Chee by McClelland Engineers S.A., and Albuquerque by Oceaneering International, S.D.N. B.H.D., each a foreign subsidiary of defendants/appellees Halliburton Company, McClelland Engineers, Inc. and Oceaneering International, Inc., respectively. Decedent Craig was an American and his wife, plaintiff Ten Fong Craig, is Singaporean; decedent Zipfel was British and his wife, plaintiff Shereen Ramona Zipfel, is Singaporean; plaintiffs Chee and Albuquerque are Singaporean; and plaintiff Grunke is Australian.

DISCUSSION
A. The District Court's Reconsideration of Previous Denial of Motion

We review for abuse of discretion a district judge's decision to reconsider an interlocutory order by another judge of the same court. Castner v. First National Bank, 278 F.2d 376, 380 (9th Cir.1960). In Castner we stated that the second judge does not conscientiously carry out his judicial function "if he permits what he believes to be a prior...

To continue reading

Request your trial
58 cases
  • Neely v. Club Med Management Services, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • July 26, 1995
    ...factors articulated in the Lauritzen opinion do not apply with the same force in all circumstances. See, e.g., Zipfel v. Halliburton Co., 832 F.2d 1477, 1482-83 (9th Cir.1987); Chiazor v. Transworld Drilling Co., 648 F.2d 1015, 1019 (5th Cir.1981), overruled on other grounds by In re Air Cr......
  • Gazis v. John S. Latsis (USA) Inc., 87 Civ. 5310 (CHT).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • January 30, 1990
    ...their position — that Jones Act jurisdiction bars a forum non conveniens dismissal — in the wake of Piper. See Zipfel v. Halliburton Co., 832 F.2d 1477, 1486 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1054, 108 S.Ct. 2819, 100 L.Ed.2d 921 (1988); Needham v. Phillips Petroleum Co. of Norway, 719......
  • Baldwin v.United States, Civil Action No. 09–0033.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of the Northern Mariana Islands
    • September 26, 2011
    ...... at 887 (quoting Bucy v. Nevada Const. Co., 125 F.2d 213, 217 (9th Cir.1942)). 2. Reconsideration of the ...'s order denying motions to dismiss and for summary judgment); see Zipfel v. Halliburton Co., 832 F.2d 1477, 1481 (9th Cir.1987), modified and ......
  • Ministry of Health v. Shiley, SACV 93-691-GLT[GJ].
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • August 1, 1994
    ...in an American court, and is not unsuitable because a plaintiff's potential damages award may be smaller. Zipfel v. Halliburton Co., 832 F.2d 1477, 1484 (9th Cir.1987) (quoting Piper, 454 U.S. at 255, 102 S.Ct. at The action can be pursued in Canada without undue delay. Defendant has agreed......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT