New admiralty / maritime case from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It is unpublished and is of restricted precedential value, but it presents a neat, concise fact pattern to illuminate some issues that are frequently seen in maritime litigation.
The case is Sinotrans Container Lines Co. v. N. China Cargo Servs. and can be found here.
California corporation contracts with Chinese carrier to transport waste paper in containers to China. California corporation never picks up the containers. Carrier endures a host of damages, including demurrage, storage, costs and legal fees. Carrier sues in federal court in California.
California corporation challenged subject matter jurisdiction, the propriety of summary judgment when facts were disputed, and the convenience of the forum.
The Ninth Circuit reminds us that admiralty cases have express statutory jurisdiction in federal courts. Additionally, the litigants were of diverse citizenship, which is a separate basis for federal court jurisdiction.
The court also rejected the California corporation's challenge to summary judgment in the carrier's favor. The shipper tried to assert a FRCP 56(f) objection to the summary judgment. This type of objection says that summary judgment is premature pending completion of some discovery. The court found that the shipper did not satisfy the rule and therefore dismissed the objection.
Finally, the court rejected the challenge to forum in the Central District of California. Who doesn't love LA? Apparently, the shipper doesn't. Certainly, when the containers are sitting in a port in China, it is challenging to gather evidence about the conditions, demurrage charges, etc. But...., the standard of review for forum nonconveniens challenges is high and in this case, the shipper could not fulfill its burden of proof to challenge the forum.
Comments