Kinjo et al v. Champion Shipping AS et al

Filing 53

ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 8/4/2010 GRANTING 30 Motion to Dismiss. Civil Case Terminated. CASE CLOSED. (Matson, R)

Kinjo et al v. Champion Shipping AS et al

Doc. 53

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 MASAO KINJO and YOJU MORI, 13 14 16 18 19 20
v. CHAMPION TANKERS AS, Plaintiffs, NO. CIV. 2:09-CV-03603 FCD/DAD MEMORANDUM AND ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ----oo0oo----

15 CHAMPION SHIPPING AS and 17 _____________________________/
----oo0oo---Plaintiffs Masao Kinjo and Yoju Mori ("plaintiffs") bring Defendants.

21 this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern 22 District of California against defendants Champion Shipping, AS, 23 and Champion Tankers, AS, (collectively "defendants") seeking 24 damages for injuries allegedly resulting from a collision in 25 international waters off the coast of Taiwan between defendants' 26 vessel M/V Champion Express ("Champion Express"), a shipping 27 tanker registered in Liberia, and plaintiffs' vessel, the S/V 28 Princess Taiping ("the Taiping"), a small, replica 15th century

Dockets.Justia.com

1 Chinese sailing vessel registered in Hong Kong and owned by Tmax 2 Strategy & Marketing Limited. 4 of forum non conveniens. 6 7
This matter is before the court on

3 defendant Champion Shipping AS's motion to dismiss on the basis
Plaintiffs oppose the motion. For the

5 reasons set forth below,1 defendant's motion is GRANTED.2
BACKGROUND This action arises out of an alleged collision between the

8 MV Champion Express and the Taiping that occurred in 9 international waters off the coast of Taiwan on April 26, 2009 10 ("the Collision"). 12 Champion Tankers. 14 Liu Ningsheng.
The Champion Express is a large, 609-foot

11 chemical tanker owned by Champion Shipping and operated by
The Taiping was a 53-foot wooden replica of a

13 15th century Chinese vessel commissioned by Taiwanese national
The Taiping was nearing the completion of an

15 extended voyage when the alleged collision occurred off the coast 16 of Taiwan, destroying the vessel. 17 2.) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, the court orders the matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). Plaintiffs also move to strike declarations submitted in support of defendant's reply memorandum, arguing that defendant's reply should be limited to the facts raised in the moving and opposition papers. The Ninth Circuit has held "where new evidence is presented in a reply . . . , the district court should not consider the new evidence without giving the nonmovant an opportunity to respond." Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir. 1996) (internal quotations omitted). However, the court finds the declarations respond to discrete issues raised by plaintiffs' in their opposition brief, and do not raise new facts or arguments. Moreover, given the stipulations by the parties to continue the hearing almost two months later than the initial hearing date, plaintiffs have had ample opportunity to respond to the declarations, but have failed to do so. Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion to strike is DENIED. 2
2 1

(Def.'s Mot Dismiss, ("MTD")

Following the collision, the Taiping's crew members were

1 rescued by the Taiwanese Air Force and Coast Guard, who 2 transported them to Taiwan and issued a report on the incident. 3 (Compl. ¶ 7.) 4
On August 28, 2009, Champion Shipping issued a Writ of

5 Summons to initiate a limitation proceeding before the Admiralty 6 Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Court of 7 First Instance (the "Hong King Admiralty Court"). 9 2010, ¶ 3.7.)
(MTD at 4;

8 George D. Lamplough Decl. ("Lamplough Decl."), filed Apr. 12,
By initiating the proceeding, the owners of

10 Champion Express voluntarily submitted to that court's 11 jurisdiction and consented to service of process in Hong Kong. 12 (Lamplough Decl. ¶ 3.7.)
Champion subsequently sent a copy of

13 the Summons to plaintiffs, as well as Tmax, Taiping Master Liu 14 Ning Sheng, and passenger Chao Hsiu Ying. 16 of service in Hong Kong.
(Id. at ¶ 3.9.) Tmax, Sheng, and Ying,

15 along with Taiping First Mate Yuquan Tang, filed acknowledgments
On September 24, 2009,

17 Champion Shipping issued a Summons for a Limitation Decree, 18 notice of which was sent to plaintiffs.
(Id. at ¶ 3.10.) On

19 November 10, 2009, the Hong Kong court issued a Limitation 20 Decree, copies of which were sent to plaintiffs' attorneys. 21 at ¶ 3.14.)
(Id. Champion Shipping stipulated to an extension of time

22 for plaintiffs to file claims in the Hong Kong action up to and 23 including August 10, 2010, (Id. at 3.18), and have stipulated to 24 further extension if necessary. 25 27 28
3 (Id. at 4.35.) Plaintiffs filed the present action on December 30, 2009,

26 seeking to recover damages for physical and emotional injuries

1 resulting from the collision.3 3 by Taiping crew members. 4 are Japanese citizens.

This is one of two related

2 actions arising out of the collision, both of which were brought
Both of the plaintiffs in this action All plaintiffs in the related action,

5 Cook, et al. v. Champion Shipping AS, et al., No. 2:09-CV-036056 FCD DAD ("the Cook action"), are citizens of California and 7 Hawaii.
The Champion Express S/V was crewed by 25 individuals at (MTD 3.) 24 crew members were (Id.)

8 the time of the collision.

9 citizens of India, and one was a citizen of Greece. 11 action in the amount of $10.5 million.

10 Plaintiffs obtained a Letter of Undertaking for this and the Cook
(Decl. of John M. Champion

12 Toriello ("Toriello Decl."), filed Apr. 12, 2010, ¶ 8.)

13 agrees to amend the Letter of Undertaking in order to secure any 14 judgment rendered by the Hong Kong Admiralty Court for both these 15 plaintiffs and the plaintiffs in the Cook action in the event the 16 present action is dismissed by this court for forum non 17 conveniens. 18 19
(Toriello Decl. ¶ 8.) ANALYSIS Emphasizing plaintiff's Japanese citizenship and the foreign

20 jurisdiction agreements already existing between the owners of 21 the Taiping and Champion Shipping, defendant moves to dismiss 22 this action on the basis of forum non conveniens, arguing, "[i]t 23 is clear that the central focus for this claim and all other 24 claims related to [the collision] is Asia and the most convenient 25 location to resolve these claims is in Hong Kong." 26 27 28
Plaintiffs have secured quasi in rem jurisdiction over Champion Shipping AS, and are presently attempting to secure personal jurisdiction over Champion Tankers AS. 4
3

(MTD at 6.)

1 Plaintiffs respond that defendant cannot make a showing 2 sufficient to overcome the presumption that plaintiffs' chosen 3 forum is correct. 4
(Pls.' Opp.'n, filed May 18, 2010, at 1.) A court has "the discretion to decline jurisdiction in a

5 case where litigation in a foreign forum would be more convenient 6 for the parties." 8 504 (1947).
Lueck v. Sundstrand Corp., 236 F.3d 1137, 1142

7 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing) Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501,
A party moving for dismissal on forum non conveniens

9 grounds has the burden of showing: (1) whether an adequate 10 alternative forum exists; and (2) whether the balance of private 11 and public interest factors favors dismissal.
Ceramic Corp. of

12 America v. Inka Maritime Corp., 1 F.3d 947, 949 (9th Cir. 1993). 13 There is a strong presumption to honor a plaintiff's choice of 14 forum, but a court may balance that presumption against the 15 "private interests" and "public interests" of litigating in a 16 foreign country.
Lueck, 236 F.3d at 1145. Further, a foreign

17 plaintiff's forum selection is entitled to less deference than an 18 American plaintiffs. 19 255-56 (1981). 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
4

Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235,

The Ninth Circuit considers the following

20 "private interests" in its analysis:
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) the residence of the parties and the witnesses; the forum's convenience to the litigants; access to physical evidence and other sources of proof; whether unwilling witnesses can be compelled to testify; the cost of bringing witnesses to trial; the enforceability of the judgment;4 and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive.

28 significant factor.

Plaintiffs and defendant agree that this is not a 5

1 Id. (citing Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508). 3 4 5 6
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

In addition, the Ninth

2 Circuit considers the following "public interests":
local interest of lawsuit; the court's familiarity with governing law; burden on local courts and juries; congestion in the court; and the costs of resolving a dispute unrelated to this forum. A court should

7 Id. at 1147 (citing Piper, 454 U.S. at 259-61).

8 consider the "private interest" and "public interest" factors 9 applicable to a case before it and give appropriate weight to 10 each factor.
Id. at 1145 (citing Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508 A court "should consider [these factors] Id.

11 (citations omitted)). 13 I. 14

12 together in arriving at a balanced conclusion."
Adequacy Of Alternative Forum

The requirement of an alternative forum is generally

15 satisfied when the defendant is amenable to process in the other 16 jurisdiction.
See Lockman Found. v. Evangelical Alliance This requirement may

17 Mission, 930 F.2d 764, 768 (9th Cir. 1991).

18 not be satisfied, however, in "rare circumstances ... where the 19 remedy offered by the other forum is clearly unsatisfactory." 20 Piper, 454 U.S. at 256.
However, "[a] foreign forum must only

21 provide the plaintiff with `some' remedy in order for the 22 alternative forum to be adequate."
Loya v. Starwood Hotels &

23 Resorts Worldwide, Inc., 583 F.3d 656, 666 (9th Cir. 2009) 24 (citing Lueck, 236 F.3d at 1143-44 (rejecting the plaintiffs' 25 argument that New Zealand offered no remedy for their losses 26 because it has legislated tort law out of existence, and noting 27 that the district court was not required to ask whether 28 plaintiffs could bring this lawsuit there but rather, whether New
6

1 Zealand offered "a" remedy)). 3 American counterpart.

A forum is not inadequate simply

2 because its laws offer a plaintiff lesser remedy than its
Lueck, 236 F.3d at 1143 (citing Piper, 454

4 U.S. at 240); Loya, 583 F.3d at 666 ("[T]hat the law, or the 5 remedy afforded, is less favorable in the foreign forum is not 6 determinative."). 7
In this case, both Champion Shipping, and Champion Tankers,

8 through a signed declaration of its Managing Director Arne Viste, 9 have expressly agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the Hong 10 Kong Admiralty court.
(Supplemental Decl. of Arne Viste ("Viste Thus, Hong Kong is

11 Supp. Decl."), filed May 28, 2010, ¶ 5.) 13

12 available for adjudication of this dispute.
Further, defendant presents evidence that the potential

14 relief accorded in the Hong Kong Court is not "clearly 15 unsatisfactory."
Specifically, Hong Kong Basic Law, through The

16 Merchant Shipping Ordinance (Cap 434), has incorporated The 17 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976 18 ("the 1976 Convention").
Basic Law (Cap. 434), s12. The 1976

19 Convention, while limiting liability for shipowners for damage 20 caused by or occurring on or in direct connection to their ship, 21 allows for plaintiffs to recover when "it is proved that the 22 [plaintiff's] loss resulted from [the ship owner's] personal act 23 or omission, committed with the intent to cause such loss, or 24 recklessly and with knowledge that such loss would probably 25 result." 27 Sch2).)
(Lamplough Decl. ¶ 4.3.2 (citing Merchant Shipping

26 (Limitation of Shipowners Liability) Ordinance (Cap 434), s4,
Pursuant to the 1976 Convention, once plaintiffs have

28 filed and proved their claims, the Hong Kong court will
7

1 distribute among them the amount of their proved claims, drawing 2 from the $12.5 million Limitation Decree filed in that court by 3 defendants.
(Id. at 4.3.6 (citing Merchant Shipping (Limitation

4 of Shipowners Liability) Ordinance (Cap 434), s12, Sch 2).) 5 Furthermore, with respect to their personal injury claims, 6 plaintiffs will be required to prove largely the same elements 7 and meet the same burden of proof in Hong Kong Admiralty court as 8 they would in an American court.
See Joseph Constantine

9 Steamship Line Ltd v. Imperial Smelting Corporation Ltd., (1942) 10 AC 154 per Lord Maugham (establishing as the burden of proof in 11 Hong Kong personal injury claims: "he who asserts must prove, not 12 he who denies"). 14
Accordingly, defendant has presented sufficient

13 evidence that the Hong Kong Admiralty Court provides a remedy.
Plaintiffs assert that defendant's evidence is biased and Specifically, plaintiffs contend that

15 thus, lacks credibility.

16 George D. Lamplough ("Lamplough") is not a "disinterested expert" 17 because he represents Champion Shipping in the limitation 18 proceeding.
However, the court's review of the bases for

19 Lamplough's conclusions as well as a review of the underlying law 20 support consideration of this evidence.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1

21 ("In determining foreign law, the court may consider any relevant 22 material or source, including testimony, whether or not submitted 23 by a party or admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence."). 24 Moreover, defendant's contentions are also supported by the 25 declaration of Clifford Lonsdale Smith ("Smith"), a barrister 26 practicing in Hong Kong, enlisted to provide his "independent 27 opinion" regarding Hong Kong law and procedure.
(Decl. of

28 Clifford Lonsdale Smith ("Smith Decl."), filed May 28, 2010, ¶¶
8

1 3-4.)

Smith has had no personal connection with the admiralty (Id. ¶ 4.) However, he declares that

2 proceeding or this case.

3 he is "in total agreement with the content of, and the views 4 expressed in" the relevant portions of Lamplough's declaration. 5 (Id. ¶ 6.)
Finally, plaintiffs have proffered no evidence or

6 argument to rebut defendant's demonstration that Hong Kong would 7 offer an adequate forum for relief. 8
Accordingly, the court concludes that defendant has met its

9 burden in demonstrating that there is an adequate alternative 10 forum. 11 II. 12
The Balance Of Convenience Given the existence of an adequate alternative forum, the

13 court must balance private and public interest factors to 14 determine whether to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens. 15 Lockman, 930 F.2d at 769. 17 236 F.3d at 1145. 18 19 20 21
A. Private Interest Factors 1. The residence of the parties and the witnesses, the forum's convenience to the litigants, and access to evidence A court "should consider [these Lueck,

16 factors] together in arriving at a balanced conclusion."

In assessing whether the weight to be accorded the residence

22 of the parties and witnesses, the court must look at "the 23 materiality and importance of the anticipated [evidence and] 24 witnesses' testimony and then determine their accessibility and 25 convenience to the forum."
Gates Learjet Corp. v. Jensen, 743 An American citizen's choice

26 F.2d 1325, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1984). 28 the court.

27 to sue in their home forum is afforded deferential treatment by
However, "the presumption applies with less force 9

1 when the plaintiff or real parties in interest are foreign." 2 Piper, 454 U.S. at 266. 3
The court concludes that the residence of the parties and Both plaintiffs in this

4 witnesses weighs in favor of dismissal. 5 action are Japanese citizens. 7 convenient forum. 9 Asian country. 10 at 8.)

They have proffered neither

6 evidence nor argument demonstrating that California is a more
Further, Champion Shipping identifies 37

8 potential "material witnesses," 30 of whom are residents of an
(Def.'s Reply Mem. ("Reply"), filed May 28, 2010, These witnesses include the owner, master, and first mate

11 of the Taiping, who are residents of Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the 12 People's Republic of China, respectively.
(Id.) These witnesses

13 are likely to have relevant information regarding the "design, 14 construction, equipment, and seaworthiness of the Taiping." 15 12.) 16
The material witnesses residing in Asian countries greatly Even assuming the truth of (MTD

17 outnumber those in the United States.

18 plaintiffs' contention that few of these potential witnesses are 19 residents of Hong Kong, these witnesses are concentrated in areas 20 closer to Hong Kong than Sacramento, California. 22 resolution of this matter. 24 of the Hong Kong court.
Moreover, the

21 testimony of these witnesses is likely to be material to the
The owner, master, and first mate of

23 the Taiping have already submitted to the exclusive jurisdiction
The Indian crew members who were aboard

25 the Champion Express at the time of the accident live in India. 26 (Decl. of Arne Viste ("Viste Decl."), filed Apr. 12, 2010, ¶ 7.) 27 The accident was investigated by Taiwanese officials, and 28 plaintiffs were treated by Taiwanese physicians after the
10

1 collision.

(Lampough Decl. ¶ 3.4)

Finally, a joint survey of (Id. ¶ 3.6.) As

2 the Champion Express was conducted in Shanghai.

3 such, relevant witnesses that would have information relating to 4 the accident itself, treatment of plaintiffs, and near5 contemporaneous and subsequent investigations of the Champion 6 Express are located in Southeast Asia.
See Loya, 583 F.3d at

7 665-66 (holding that dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds 8 was warranted where the conduct giving rise to litigation was 9 "arranged, documents, outfitted, undertaken, and investigated" in 10 Mexico). 11 13 Asia.
Moreover, most of the relevant physical evidence, including

12 investigative documents and Taiwan Coast Guard reports, is in
Further, relevant documentary evidence about the design,

14 construction, equipment, and seaworthiness of the Taiping will be 15 located in either Hong Kong, where it was registered, or the 16 People's Republic of China, where it was built. 17 ¶ 3.3.)
(Lampough Decl. Taiwan also maintains a vessel tracking system that

18 monitors the movement of vessels along their coastline based on 19 information received from AIS transponders on vessels. 20 3.4.)
(Id. ¶ Neither plaintiffs nor defendant assert that they have

21 control over this evidence such that it could be brought to court 22 no matter the forum.
See Lueck, 236 F.3d at 1146 (holding that

23 the foreign location of documentary evidence weighed in favor of 24 dismissal where it was not in plaintiff's control or under the 25 control of a foreign government); (see also Lampaugh Decl. ¶ 26 4.7.7 (setting forth the procedures for the High Court to issue 27 requests to all foreign countries and other jurisdictions within 28 /////
11

1 the People's Republic of China)). 3

As such, the location of such

2 evidence weighs in favor of dismissal.
Plaintiffs argue that they are individuals of modest means

4 and thus, the balance of inconveniences weighs in favor of this 5 court retaining jurisdiction.5
However, plaintiffs' objection to

6 litigation in a foreign forum is substantially diminished by 7 their prior willingness to embark on a trans-Pacific voyage 8 aboard the Taiping, a Hong Kong flagged vessel, which was 9 scheduled to end its journey in Honk Kong.
(Opp.'n at 2.)

10 Plaintiffs' argument is further undermined by the failure to 11 present any argument or evidence that the cost of litigating 12 claims in this court would be less expensive or burdensome to a 13 Japanese citizen than litigating their claims in Hong Kong. 14 Further, defendant presents evidence that an action in the Hong 15 Kong Admiralty Court will require little presence by plaintiffs 16 in Hong Kong. 18 statement.
Specifically, plaintiffs participate in proceeding

17 through their solicitors and initially give evidence by written
Moreover, they are not required to give depositions (Smith Decl. ¶¶ 23-25.) Finally,

19 at an interlocutory stage.

20 defendant has agreed to assist in defraying reasonable 21 transportation and lodging costs if plaintiffs are required to 22 appear. 24 26
(Supplemental Decl. of John M. Toriello ("Toriello Supp.

23 Decl."), filed May 28, 2010, ¶ 4.)
Accordingly, as plaintiffs and a majority of potentially

25 relevant witnesses reside in Asian countries, physical and
5

27 relate to the two named plaintiffs in this action, but rather, 28 the related Cook action.

The court notes that none of plaintiffs' arguments

argue for the convenience and cost to the six named plaintiffs in 12

1 documentary evidence is located in Southeast Asia and Hong Kong, 2 and under the circumstances of this case, this forum is not of 3 particular convenience to many of the litigants, including 4 plaintiffs, these factors weighs in favor of dismissal. 5 6 7
2. Whether unwilling witnesses can be compelled to testify and the cost of bringing witnesses to trial

Dismissal on the grounds of forum non conveniens may be

8 appropriate when the court finds "critical witnesses" to the 9 litigation are beyond its jurisdictional reach. 11 1200 (C.D. Cal. 2004).
In re Air Crash

10 over the Taiwan Strait on May 25, 2002, 331 F. Supp. 2d 1176,
A defendant must delineate how witnesses

12 not subject to compulsory process are critical to the actions, 13 though it is not required "to identify each potentially critical 14 witness, nor to submit affidavits that provide significant 15 evidentiary detail."
Id. (citing Piper, 454 U.S. at 258.)

16 Further, where all witnesses to liability are located in a 17 foreign forum and where a court would be aided by familiarity 18 with the local landscape and easy access to the site of an 19 accident, it may be "unfair" to make foreign defendants proceed 20 to trial in a United States forum. 21
Piper, 454 U.S. at 1199. In this case, defendant has identified a number of critical

22 witnesses who cannot be compelled to provide testimony in this 23 forum, including the owners of the Taiping, crew members and 24 passengers from the Taiping, persons involved in the design and 25 construction of the Taiping, crew members of the Champion 26 Express, and the surveyors retained by the owners of both vessels 27 28
13

1 to conduct the post incident surveys.6

Moreover, as set forth

2 above, the majority of witnesses to the accident, rescue, and 3 subsequent investigation are located in Hong Kong or Southeast 4 Asia. 6 8 9 10
As such, the cost of bringing witnesses to trial would be

5 substantially less if the claims were litigated in Hong Kong.
Accordingly, these private factors also weigh in favor of

7 dismissal on the basis of forum non conveniens.
3. Other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive

Finally, the court notes that defendant has made a

11 compelling case that Hong Kong is the only forum where all claims 12 may be resolved in a single proceeding.
Collision Jurisdiction

13 Agreements have been executed with the owners of the Taiping, the 14 Master Liu Ning Sheng, the First Mate Yuquan Tang, and additional 15 passenger Chao Hisu-Ying.
(Lampaugh Decl. ¶ 3.20.) The

16 Limitation Proceeding has already been initiated in Hong Kong, 17 and defendant has already stipulated to an extension of time for 18 plaintiffs to file claims in this action.
(Id. ¶ 3.18.)

19 Further, defendant represents that if plaintiffs were to sue 20 Champion Tankers AS in Hong Kong, it would be open to accept 21 service or proceedings and submit to jurisdiction. 22 ¶ 26.) 23 25
Plaintiffs argue "no forum exists in which all the claims (Smith Decl.

24 that arose from our collision can be resolved in a single action"
6

26 Ltd., the corporate owner of the Taiping, is a necessary party to 27 jurisdiction of this court. 28
this action and is a Hong Kong corporation not subject to the Even if Tmax Strategy & Marketing Ltd. is merely a joint tortfeasor, as suggested by plaintiffs, this fact still weighs in favor of dismissal. 14

Defendant also contends that Tmax Strategy & Marketing

1 because they refuse to submit to the jurisdiction of the Hong 2 Kong Admiralty Court.
(Opp.'n 15.) However, this assertion

3 inappropriately equates plaintiffs' unwillingness to try their 4 case in Hong Kong to the inability of that forum to host the 5 entirety of this litigation with all parties present. 6 Plaintiffs' can resolve their claims in a single action in Hong 7 Kong; they simply refuse to submit to jurisdiction. 8
Because Hong Kong offers a forum in which all claims

9 involving all parties could be tried in one action, the court 10 concludes that this factor also weighs in favor of dismissal. 11 12
B. Public Interest Factors Similar to the private interest factors, the court considers

13 any or all of the public interest factors that are relevant to 14 the dispute and gives appropriate weight to each when arriving at 15 a balanced conclusion. 16 255).
Id. at 1145-46 (citing Piper, 454 U.S. at Of the public interest factors listed above, defendant

17 emphasizes plaintiff's foreign citizenship, California's minimal 18 connection to the events giving rise to this action, the 19 administrative difficulties and jury imposition that this case 20 represents, and the complex choice of law question facing this 21 court should jurisdiction over this action be retained. 22 Defendant contends that Hong Kong's interest in this litigation 23 is stronger than that of California, and that the cost to a 24 California court in hearing this matter will be far greater than 25 the cost to the Hong Kong Admiralty Court. 26
Given the strained judicial and administrative resources in

27 the Eastern District, California's minimal connection to this 28 litigation, and the complex choice of law issues represented by
15

1 this case, the court finds the public interest factors weigh in 2 favor of dismissal.
See Backcountry Against Dumps v. Abbott, No.

3 CIV S-10-394, 2010 WL 2349194 (E.D. Cal. June 8, 2010) (noting 4 that the Eastern District of California has only seven active 5 judges who maintain a caseload of nearly 1100 cases per judge). 6 The jury in this case will be required to hear testimony from 7 witnesses regarding an alleged collision that took place between 8 two differently flagged vessels in international waters off the 9 coast of Tawian.
Plaintiffs have failed to set forth any

10 compelling argument or legal support that this community has a 11 generalized interest in a maritime dispute involving 12 multinational parties in which two Japanese residents voluntarily 13 undertook to join the crew of a Hong Kong vessel undertaking a 14 trans-Pacific voyage.
In addition, the ultimate questions to be

15 resolved in this action turn on events that occurred in 16 international waters off the coast of Hong Kong. 17
Moreover, this action is likely to represent a complex

18 choice of laws analysis that appears to rely heavily on the 19 outcome of factual determinations regarding whether there was a 20 collision or merely a close passage.
(See Reply at 2-4.) Given

21 California's negligible interest in providing a forum for this 22 action, this complex analysis is not a task that the court feels 23 compelled to undertake given the circumstances of this case. 24 MAN Ferrostaal, Inc. v. M/V Vertigo, 447 F. Supp. 2d 316, 323 25 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (identifying the different approaches courts take 26 to determine what law applies in vessel collission cases). 27 explained by the Supreme Court in Piper: 28 /////
16 As See

1 2 3 4 6 509).

The doctrine of forum non conveniens . . . is designed in part to help courts avoid conducting complex exercises in comparative law . . . [T]he public interest factors point towards dismissal where the court would be required to "untangle problems in conflict of law, and in law foreign to itself.

5 454 U.S. at 251 (quoting Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. at
Plaintiffs assert that because this litigation involves a

7 third party claim against defendants for a collision that 8 occurred in international waters, general maritime law should 9 apply.
(Opp.'n at 17 (citing Alkmeon Naviera, S.A. v. M/V Marina Defendant asserts that

10 L, 633 F.2d 789, 793 (9th Cir. 1980).)

11 whether there was a collision or only a close passage is a 12 contested fact that substantially affects the choice of law. 13 Without reaching the merits of this argument, it is the court's 14 opinion that even if general maritime law were to govern this 15 action, thereby rendering the choice of law question neutral, the 16 weight of public interest factors still would overwhelmingly in 17 favor of dismissal. 18 19
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that Hong

20 Kong is an adequate alternative forum and that the balance of 21 private and public factors weigh heavily in favor of dismissal on 22 the basis of forum non conveniens.
Therefore, defendant's motion The clerk of the

23 to dismiss for an alternative forum is GRANTED. 24 court is directed to close this file. 25 27 28
IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 DATED: August 4, 2010
FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17