Ceramic Corp. of America v. Inka Maritime Corp. Inc., 92-55052
| Decision Date | 06 August 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-55052,92-55052 |
| Citation | 1 F.3d 947 |
| Parties | CERAMIC CORPORATION OF AMERICA; Caffco Import Inc.; Caffco International Inc.; C.C.C. Associates Inc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. INKA MARITIME CORPORATION INC.; NSB Niederelbe Schiffahrtsgesellchaft mbH & Co. KG; Deutsche Seereederei Rostock GmbH & Co.; Senator Linie GmbH & Co. KG; Cho Yang Shipping Co., Ltd.; The Vessel M/V BREMEN SENATOR, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
George R. Daly, Bigham, Englar, Jones & Houston, New York City, and Paul Gary Sterling, Meadows, Smith, Lenker, Sterling & Davis, Long Beach, CA, for plaintiffs-appellants.
John D. Giffin, Keesal, Young & Logan, San Francisco, CA and Michael J. Ryan, Hill, Betts & Nash, Long Beach, CA, for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before WALLACE, Chief Judge, O'SCANNLAIN and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Ceramic Corporation of America and 22 other American owners and insurers of cargo carried aboard the M/V Bremen Senator (collectively Ceramic) appeal from the district court's dismissal of their admiralty action on the grounds of forum non conveniens. Ceramic contends that the district court erred in concluding that Japan is a more convenient forum for its claims. The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1333. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291. We reverse and remand.
About May 15 or 16, 1991, the M/V Bremen Senator (vessel) collided with a pier owned by the Nisshin Tanker Company (Nisshin) located on Matsure Island in Japanese territorial waters, thus interrupting the vessel's trip to the United States. The owner of the vessel, Inka Maritime Corporation (Inka), a Liberian corporation with its principal place of business in Germany, declared general average in Japan and appointed an average adjuster located in Hamburg, Germany. General average is an equitable doctrine in maritime law applicable when the vessel incurs extraordinary expense "to avert a peril that threatens the entire voyage." In such circumstances, "the party suffering the loss has a right ... to claim contribution from all who participate in the venture," including the cargo interests. Thomas J. Schoenbaum, Admiralty and Maritime Law Sec. 16-1, at 522-23 (1987).
On June 16, 1991, Ceramic filed this action in admiralty against the vessel in rem; Inka; NSB Niederelbe Schiffahrtsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, a German corporation acting as vessel manager; and Deutsche Seereederei Rostock GmbH & Co. and Senator Linie GmbH & Co. KG, two German corporations that chartered the vessel and issued the bills of lading involved (collectively, the vessel interests). Ceramic sought money damages and a declaratory judgment that the vessel interests have no right to recover general average contributions from cargo on board the vessel or contributions to any salvage award. It alleged that it has been damaged because it has "and will have to provide security to the vessel interests for the claim of general average and to [the] salvors in order to obtain possession of [its] cargo and have and will incur expenses in defending against such general average and salvage claims."
Several days later, Nisshin commenced an action against the same vessel interests. The two actions were designated as related cases and were assigned to the same judge. On November 18, 1991, the district court granted the vessel interests' motions to dismiss, holding that Japan was a more convenient forum to hear the two cases. Nisshin did not appeal the district court's decision.
We review the district court's dismissal on the grounds of forum non conveniens for abuse of discretion. Lockman Found. v. Evangelical Alliance Mission, 930 F.2d 764, 767 (9th Cir.1991) (Lockman ).
The forum non conveniens determination is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. It may be reversed only when there has been a clear abuse of discretion; where the court has considered all relevant public and private interest factors, and where its balancing of these factors is reasonable, its decision deserves substantial deference.
A party moving in the trial court to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens has the burden of showing: "(1) the existence of an adequate alternative forum, and (2) that the balance of private and public interest factors favors dismissal." Lockman, 930 F.2d at 767. "This showing must overcome the 'great deference ... due plaintiffs because a showing of convenience by a party who has sued in his home forum will usually outweigh the inconvenience the defendant may have shown.' " Id., quoting Contact Lumber Co. v. P.T. Moges Shipping Co., 918 F.2d 1446, 1449 (9th Cir.1990) (Contact Lumber ).
Our first task is to determine whether Japan provides an adequate alternative forum for the resolution of this dispute. Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 254 n. 22, 102 S.Ct. at 265 n. 22. This requirement is ordinarily satisfied when the defendant is amenable to process in the other jurisdiction. Id. Here, the district court granted the motion to dismiss on the express condition that the vessel interests agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the Japanese courts and waive the defense of statute of limitations as to any action arising from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brice v. Plain Green, LLC.
...http://www.omtribe.org/useruploads/files/approved_ordinance_2018_pdf. 14 Defendants also cites Ceramic Crop. of America v. Inka Maritime Corp., Inc. , 1 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 1993), which is inapplicable because it deals with the standard dismissal under forum non conveniens , a distinct quest......
-
Concat Lp v. Unilever, Plc
...102 S.Ct. at 265. In addition, a court must balance a number of private and public interest factors. Ceramic Corp. of America v. Inka Maritime Corp., 1 F.3d 947, 949 (9th Cir.1993). Plaintiff's choice of forum will ordinarily prevail, unless those factors strongly favor trial in the foreign......
-
Parex Bank v. Russian Sav. Bank
...refused to dismiss where alternate fora would not allow plaintiffs to bring their claims. See, e.g., Ceramic Corp. of America v. Inka Maritime Corp., 1 F.3d 947, 949 (9th Cir.1993) (plaintiff "will not be able to pursue any of its claims in Japan or obtain any relief in that forum."); Shona......
-
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.
...Thus, Sharman has failed to "overcome the great deference ... due plaintiffs" in their choice of forum. Ceramic Corp. of Am. v. Inka Maritime Corp., 1 F.3d 947, 949 (9th Cir.1993) (quotations D. Political Question Doctrine Sharman also argues that the Complaint should be dismissed pursuant ......
-
Motions
...however, if the alternative forum is so inadequate that essential justice cannot be achieved. Ceramic Corp. of Am. v. Inka Maritime Corp. , 1 F.3d 947, 949 (9th Cir. 1993). Note, however, that where the remedy under foreign law is inadequate, the court may still dismiss the case if the fore......
-
Table of Cases
...1988), §2:33 Cendant Corp. PRIDES Litig. , 243 F.3d 722, 732 n.12 (3d Cir. 2001), Form 7-48 Ceramic Corp. of Am. v. Inka Maritime Corp ., 1 F.3d 947, 949 (9th Cir. 1993), §7:61 Preparing for Trial in Federal Court C- 808 CF & I Steel Corp. v. Mitsui & Co. , 713 F.2d 494 (9th Cir. 1983), §4:......