Mobil Tankers Company v. Mene Grande Oil Company

• Decision Date: 27 July 1966
• Docket Number: No. 15314.,15314.
• Citation: 363 F.2d 611
• Parties: MOBIL TANKERS COMPANY, S. A., a corporation of the Republic of Panama, bareboat chartered owner in possession and operator of the PANAMANIAN FLAG VESSEL MOBIL ASTRAL, and Socony Mobil Oil Company, Inc., a New York corporation, as owner of the cargo laden on said vessel, Libelants-Appellants, v. MENE GRANDE OIL COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Respondent-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

363 F.2d 611 (1966)

MOBIL TANKERS COMPANY, S. A., a corporation of the Republic of Panama, bareboat chartered owner in possession and operator of the PANAMANIAN FLAG VESSEL MOBIL ASTRAL, and Socony Mobil Oil Company, Inc., a New York corporation, as owner of the cargo laden on said vessel, Libelants-Appellants, v. MENE GRANDE OIL COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15314.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued November 18, 1965.

Decided July 27, 1966.

Leslie C. Krusen, Philadelphia, Pa. (Killoran & Van Brunt, Wilmington, Del., Mark D. Alspach, Krusen, Evans & Byrne, Philadelphia, Pa., John W. Knox, New York City, on the brief), for appellants.

Eugene Underwood, New York City (David B. Coxe, Jr., Wilmington, Del., Thomas F. Mount, Rawle & Henderson, Philadelphia, Pa., Burlingham, Underwood, Barron, Wright & White, New York City, Frederick L. Scofield, Joseph C. Smith, New York City, on the brief), for appellee.

Before KALODNER, Chief Judge, and McLAUGHLIN and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

WILLIAM F. SMITH, Circuit Judge.

This suit in admiralty was brought by Mobil Tankers Company (Mobil) to recover for vessel and cargo damage sustained as a result of an explosion and fire allegedly caused by the negligence of Mene Grande Oil Company (Meneg). Mobil is a Panamanian corporation having its principal office and place of business in New York City; it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Socony Mobil Oil Company (Socony), a New York corporation. Meneg is a Delaware corporation having a place of business in Puerto La Cruz, Venezuela, where it operates a terminal and tank farm for the storage of oil. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Gulf Oil Corporation (Gulf) and its principal office, like that of Gulf, is in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The explosion and fire occurred while the Mobil vessel was taking on a cargo of oil, owned by Socony, at Meneg's terminal. It is conceded that the issues of liability and damages must be decided under the appropriate provisions of the Civil Code of Venezuela.

Meneg filed a motion requesting the court below to decline jurisdiction under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The court granted the motion holding that the trial of the suit in the District Court for the District of Delaware would result in "very strong inconvenience to respondent, amounting almost to injustice." 236 F.Supp. 362, 368. After the court announced its decision, Socony filed a motion for leave to intervene as a libellant. Rules of Practice in Admiralty, &c., rule 34, 28 U.S.C.A. This motion was properly granted. The court recognized that Socony, as owner of the cargo, had a real interest in the litigation and was entitled to sue in its own right. However, adhering to its original decision, the court denied an application by Mobil and Socony for leave to reargue the issues raised by Meneg's motion and dismissed the suit. This appeal followed.

Meneg argues that the lower court's findings of fact are presumptively correct and our right to review them is circumscribed by the "clearly erroneous" rule. This rule is inapplicable in the instant case. Since the matter was presented to the lower court on affidavits without oral testimony the findings of fact are reviewable free of the impact of the rule. State of Maryland for Use of Levin v. United States, 329 F.2d 722, 723 (3rd Cir. 1964), affd., without consideration of the question 381 U.S. 41, 85 S.Ct. 1293, 14 L.Ed.2d 205; United States v. United Steelworkers of America, 271 F. 2d 676, 685 (3rd Cir. 1959), affd., without consideration of the question 361 U.S. 39, 80 S.Ct. 1, 4 L.Ed.2d 12. We are in as good a position as was the trial court to evaluate the evidence, draw the inferences of which the evidence is reasonably susceptible, and decide the critical questions raised on this appeal.

It is well settled that under the rule of forum non conveniens the refusal of the district court to entertain a suit in admiralty is within its sound discretion. Swift & Co. Packers v. Compania Colombiana Del Caribe, 339 U.S. 684, 70 S.Ct. 861, 94 L.Ed. 1206 (1950); Canada Malting Co. v. Paterson Steamships, 285 U.S. 413, 52 S.Ct. 413, 76 L.Ed. 837 (1932). The term "sound discretion" as used in the rule means "a discretion exercised not arbitrarily or wilfully, but with regard to what is right and equitable under the circumstances and the law." Langnes v. Green, 282 U.S. 531, 541, 51 S.Ct. 243, 247, 75 L.Ed. 520 (1931). The ultimate inquiry is whether the retention of jurisdiction by the district court would best serve the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice.

The court's discretion under the common law rule cannot be equated with its authority to transfer an action to another court of competent jurisdiction under § 1404(a) of Title 28 U.S.C.A., enacted in 1948. The court has a broader discretion in the application of the statute than in the application of the rule. Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, 349 U.S. 29, 75 S.Ct. 544, 99 L.Ed. 789 (1955), citing with approval All States Freight v. Modarelli, 196 F.2d 1010 (3rd Cir. 1952). A court's discretion under the rule is subject to recognized limitations and this is so because of the harsh consequences which may follow dismissal of a law suit. Ibid.

The doctrine of forum non conveniens, while rather simple in principle does not lend itself to meaningful generalization when its application to concrete situations is attempted. However, the invocation of the doctrine is governed by the criteria established in a long line of decisions. Although neither a case in admiralty nor one involving foreigners, Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947) is relevant insofar as it provides such criteria.

The factors which must be considered and weighed include the following: libellant's choice of forum; status of the parties; convenience of parties and witnesses; access to sources of proof; cost of obtaining the attendance of willing witnesses; possibility of a view of the premises, if appropriate; relative advantages and obstacles to a fair trial; and, possible difficulty in the application of foreign law. Unless "the balance is strongly in favor of the respondent, the libellant's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed." Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, supra, 508, 67 S.Ct. 843.

The court below seemingly treated the suit as one between foreigners in apparent disregard of the status of Socony and Meneg as citizens of the United States and, for the purposes of venue, residents of the judicial districts in which they were incorporated. 28 U.S. C.A. § 1391(b) and (c). This treatment rested on a rationale with which we cannot agree. The suit between Socony and Meneg was one between citizens; the presence of Mobil as a libellant, suing in its own right, in no way changed this situation. The "discretionary power of a court of admiralty to relinquish jurisdiction when the suit is between foreigners furnishes no pattern" for a situation where, as here, citizens are involved. Isbrandtsen Co., Inc. v. Lloyd Brasiliero Patrimonio Nacional et al., 85 F.Supp. 740 (E.D.N.Y.1949).

Although Socony's intervention was somewhat belated it had a real interest in the suit from the beginning, both as the corporate parent of Mobil and the owner of the cargo. This interest, which the lower court regarded as minimal and of no significance, was sufficient to bring "into force considerations very different...