The Supreme Court is considering whether to hear an appeal fo the Ninth Circuit's decision in Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha v. Regal Beloit Corporation and Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Regal-Beloit Corporation. The issue before the court is to what extent do statutory rules governing shipments by rail or motor carrier apply to a shipment of cargo that was made on a maritime bill of lading. Or, as the Ninth Circuit put it, this is a maritime case about a train wreck.
The case involves a shipment of cargo from China to the United States by sea and then by rail. The bill of lading was a "through" bill of lading which covered the shipment from origin to destination. Federal law allows parties to contract different terms for maritime contracts than it allows for rail contracts. One provision at issue was a forum selection clause. Under the Carriage of Goods at Sea provisions of federal law, parties to a bill of lading could select, by contract, a forum for any dispute. In this case, the parties chose Tokyo. However, under federal law governing rail contracts, venue must be in accordance with that law and Tokyo could not be used. The trial court found that maritime and not rail law covered the dispute and applied the forum selection clause.
The Ninth Circuit reversed in its decision here. It found that the bill of lading did not apply during the rail portion of the shipment.
This is an interesting case involving a conflict between two statutory schemes with different policy issues at stake.
The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (Union Pacific's Petition/Kawasaki's Petition) and Brief in Opposition are available at SCOTUSBLOG, here. Union Pacific's Reply and Kawasaki's Reply are also available there.
The Ninth Circuit opinion acknowledged a circuit split regarding this issue and apparently, the Supreme Court earlier agreed to hear a case with this issue, but the case was settled before decision.
I don't gamble, but I think the odds are pretty good for granting the cert petition in this one.
Comments