Delta Air Lines Inc. v. Chimet

Decision Date30 August 2010
Docket NumberNo. 09-1202.,09-1202.
PartiesDELTA AIR LINES, INC., Appellant v. CHIMET, S.P.A.; Johnson Matthey, Inc.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

James C. Stroud, Esq. (argued), Rawle & Henderson, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellant.

Adam D. Mitzner, Esq. (argued), Jonathan A. Selva, Esq., Pavia & Harcourt LLP, New York, NY, David M. Laigaie, Esq., Mariana Rossman, Esq., Dilworth Paxson LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee.

Before: SCIRICA and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges, and RODRIGUEZ, District Judge. *

OPINION

CHAGARES, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff Delta Airlines, Inc. (Delta) appeals from the District Court's dismissal of this declaratory judgment action on forum non conveniens grounds. Defendant Chimet, S.p.A. (“Chimet”) shipped approximately 100 kilograms of pure platinum with Delta from Milan, Italy to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The shipment of platinum arrived in Philadelphia but was reported stolen before reaching its ultimate destination. Delta filed a complaint in the District Court, seeking a declaration that its liability for this loss was limited pursuant to Article 22(3) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, done at Montreal on May 28, 1999 (the “Montreal Convention” or the “Convention”). The District Court granted Chimet's motion to dismiss the action on forum non conveniens grounds, concluding that critical documents, witnesses, and third parties relevant to the dispute would only be available in Italy and that the location of the alleged culpable conduct was in Italy. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.

I.

Chimet is an Italian company without any “offices, property, or representatives in the United States of America.” Appendix (“App.”) 131. On April 21, 2007, Chimet hired Delta to carry cargo consisting of over 100 kilograms of pure platinum from Italy to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for delivery to Johnson Matthey, Inc. (Johnson Matthey). Chimet worked with several Italian intermediaries to perform the shipment. Chimet appointed Arexpress to arrange for the transportation of the platinum to Johnson Matthey. App. 115. Arexpress retained Securpol Vigilantes to pick up the platinum from Chimet's factory. App. 116. Securpol Vigilantes delivered the platinum to Vicenza Sped, which transported the platinum from Vicenza, Italy to Malpensa Airport in Milan. Id. At the airport, Vicenza consigned the platinum to Delta's agent, Malpensa Logistica Europea S.p.A. Id. Delta then transported the platinum to Philadelphia, via Atlanta, Georgia. Before the platinum was delivered to Johnson Matthey, however, it was reported stolen.

The Montreal Convention, which governs the international carriage of passengers, baggage, and cargo, limits Delta's liability for the loss of cargo to a specified amount per kilogram-an amount much lower than the actual value of the platinum in this case-unless Chimet declared a higher value when it consigned the goods. The parties dispute whether Chimet declared a higher value.

Much of the dispute focuses on the meaning of two documents that were generated in connection with the shipment: an air waybill, printed on a standard International Air Transportation Association (IATA) form, App. 96-97, and a document known as a distinta consegna merce, which we will refer to as a delivery receipt, App. 94. The waybill form includes fields that appear to be designed to allow the consignor to designate values for the cargo. In the field labeled as “Declared Value for Carriage,” the waybill lists the letters “NVD.” App. 96. 1 Delta claims that this abbreviation signifies “No Value Declared.” App. 140. Chimet disagrees with this interpretation, asserting that Italian witnesses will need to testify at trial regarding the meaning of this entry. Chimet Br. at 21.

The waybill also includes several entries that appear to detail the contents of the shipment. In a field labeled “Nature and Quantity of Goods (incl. Dimensions or Volume),” the waybill includes an indication that the goods are “PURE PLATINUM.” App. 96. In the area under this description of the goods as pure platinum, the following information is printed:

VAL VAL VAL VAL
THE FINAL TRANSPORTATION FROM THE AIRPORT TO THE CONSIGNEE'S ADDRESS MUST BE PERFORMED BY CUSTOMS BROKERS OR SPECIALISED COURIERS TO FORWARD VALUABLE CARGO

Id. Chimet suggests that this entry “indicates [its] intent to declare the valuable nature of the cargo.” Chimet Br. at 21. Indeed, the delivery receipt, discussed in greater detail below, indicates a value for the shipment of Q3,050,000. 2 App. 94.

Delta claims that if Vicenza Sped had attempted to declare a value for carriage of Q3,050,000, it would not have accepted the shipment because Delta's tariff rules limit the value that can be declared for a single shipment to $100,000. App. 141. Delta also asserts that if Vicenza Sped had been able to declare this value, the “valuation charge” would have been Q22,885.52, or approximately $30,000.00. App. 140-41. In addition, Delta contends that the entry VAL AP Fees 140.47 Euros” entered in the field labeled “Insurance Premium” could not represent a request for insurance in the amount of Q3,050,000. App. 142-43. Had there been such a request, Delta maintains, “the premium would have been $24,000.00, not $185.00,” the amount that appears on the waybill. App. 143. Delta interprets the entry that appears in the “Insurance Premium” field as a spillover from the “Other Charges” field directly above. See id. (“The 140.47 Euro amount shown reflects a portion of certain miscellaneous ‘other charges' due carrier, which total 218.52 Euros. These other charges were a 5.31 Euros ‘airport tax’; a fuel surcharge of 72.27 Euros and a valuable handling charge made by the export warehouse in Milan of 140.47 Euros.”).

The reverse side of the waybill form includes a number of legal notices. App. 97. At the top of the page, a capitalized notice states that under the Warsaw Convention (which preceded the Montreal Convention), the carrier's liability is limited in the case of loss unless a higher value is declared in advance and a supplementary charge paid if required. Id. In addition, under the heading “CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT,” the following provisions are listed:

4. Except as otherwise provided in carrier's tariffs or conditions of carriage, in carriage to which the Warsaw Convention does not apply, carrier's liability shall not exceed USD 20.00 or the equivalent per kilogram of goods lost....
5. If the sum entered on the face of the air waybill as “Declared Value for Carriage” represents an amount in excess of the applicable limits of liability referred to in the above Notice and in these Conditions and if the shipper has paid any supplementary charge that may be required by the carrier's tariffs, conditions of carriage or regulations, this shall constitute a special declaration of value and in this case carrier's limitation of liability shall be the sum so declared.

Id.

The parties also dispute the significance of the delivery receipt, a one-page document printed primarily in Italian on a Vicenza Sped form. App. 94. The delivery receipt appears to list the number of the air waybill, 006 4899 1622, the weight of the cargo, the destination, and the carrier. Id. It also includes an entry containing the following figure: “EU 3.050.000,00.” Id. Chimet interprets this entry as a declaration of value. See App. 116 (“Delta received a delivery receipt from Vicenza Sped for the Platinum that listed the value of the Platinum as Q3,050,000.00.”). Delta contends that the delivery receipt “only confirms that the shipment was delivered to Delta's agent.” App. 142. According to Delta, the delivery receipt “is not a transportation document and does not indicate a request for a declared value for carriage.” Id.

Chimet “denies that it did not make a declaration of value and did not pay the relative surcharge since the delivery receipt, which was received by Delta, lists the value of the Platinum as Q3,050,000.00 and the air waybill shows that additional transportation costs were paid.” App. 118. Chimet claims that testimony from individuals at Arexpress, Securpol, and Vicenza Sped would confirm its interpretation of the waybill and delivery receipt and provide additional information regarding the instructions for shipping the platinum and the creation of the documents. Id. Chimet represents that all of these individuals are citizens and residents of Italy, without any contacts with the United States, and that their testimony can therefore only be obtained in Italy. App. 119.

Delta initiated this declaratory judgment action by filing a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 13, 2007. By order dated December 19, 2008, the District Court granted Chimet's motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds. App. 4. The District Court began its analysis by determining that Italy presented an adequate alternative forum. App. 10. The court concluded that since Delta had filed the action in its home forum, the United States, this choice of forum would be accorded “considerable deference.” App. 11. With this deference in mind, the District Court applied the factors set forth by the Supreme Court in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947). The District Court determined that since a number of important witnesses might only be available if the trial were held in Italy, some of the relevant documents were located in Italy and written in Italian, and several third parties could only be joined in Italy, the “private interest factors” weighed in favor of granting the motion. See App. 31-33. Applying the “public interest factors,” the District Court concluded that although the “administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion is a neutral factor,” th...

To continue reading

Request your trial
68 cases
  • Behrens v. Arconic, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • September 16, 2020
    ...third parties" is all that is required—the defendant need not actually seek to implead the third-parties. Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Chimet, S.p.A., 619 F.3d 288, 300 (3d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also id. (rejecting the plaintiff's argument that the dist......
  • Otto Candies, LLC v. Citigroup, Inc., No. 18-12663
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • July 1, 2020
    ...witnesses that they would testify to "various facts disputing the allegations of misconduct asserted"), Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Chimet, S.p.A. , 619 F.3d 288, 300 (3d Cir. 2010) (affirming a forum non conveniens dismissal because the defendant "identified the witnesses it intended to depos......
  • Howden N. Am. Inc. v. ACE Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • June 21, 2012
    ...factors are in equipoise, or even if they lean only slightly toward dismissal, the motion to dismiss must be denied. Lacey, 932 F.2d at 180. 17.Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Chimet, S.p.A., 619 F.3d 288, 295 (3d Cir.2010) (“Ordinarily, a strong presumption of convenience exists in favor of a dom......
  • In re Air Crash Over the Mid–atl. On June 1, 2009.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • October 4, 2010
    ...actions and/or claims can be consolidated there.10 See Piper, 454 U.S. at 241 n. 6, 102 S.Ct. 252 (1981); Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Chimet, S.p.A., 619 F.3d 288, 299–300 (3d Cir.2010) (a desire to pursue contribution claims against a potentially responsible third-party is relevant to a forum......
  • 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