Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd. v. Centurion Logistics Management et al
Filing
153
ORDER re (332 in 3:11-cv-02861-SC) USCA Memorandum. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 10/5/2015. (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2015)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
MITSUI O.S.K. LINES, LTD.,
) Case Nos. 11-cv-02861-SC
)
10-cv-05591-SC
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
) ORDER ON REMAND FROM THE NINTH
) CIRCUIT
SEAMASTER LOGISTICS, INC.,
)
SUMMIT LOGISTICS INTERNATIONAL, )
INC., KESCO CONTAINER LINE,
)
INC., KESCO SHIPPING, INC., and )
DOES 1 through 20,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
17
On March 21, 2013, following a trial, the Court issued its
18
19
Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law ("FFCL") in a single
20
opinion covering two consolidated cases: the "Freight Case" (No.
21
10-cv-05591-SC) and the "Trucking Case" (No. 11-cv-2861-SC).
22
No. 261 ("FFCL").
23
("SeaMaster") and Summit Logistics International, Inc. ("Summit")1
24
appealed the Judgment in the Trucking Case, and Plaintiff Mitsui
25
O.S.K. Lines ("MOL") cross-appealed.
26
Line, Inc. and Kesco Shipping, Inc. ("Kesco") did not appeal.
Defendants SeaMaster Logistics, Inc.
Defendants Kesco Container
27
28
1
ECF
Summit was subsequently renamed Toll Global Forwarding
(Americas), Inc. ("Toll).
On
affirming the finding of misrepresentation against SeaMaster and
3
Summit, reversing the damages award to MOL and remanding for
4
recalculation, reversing the award of attorney's fees to MOL,
5
reversing the dismissal of MOL's RICO claim and remanding with
6
instructions to apply the test set forth in United States v. Chao
7
Fan Xu, 706 F.3d 965, 974 (9th Cir. 2013), and affirming the
8
United States District Court
July 6, 2015, the Ninth Circuit issued a Memorandum Disposition
2
For the Northern District of California
1
Court's conclusions on alleged co-conspirator liability.
9
before the Court are the two issues remanded for further
Now
10
proceedings: (1) recalculation of damages and (2) reconsideration
11
of MOL's RICO claim.
On September 4, 2015, the parties submitted their opening
12
13
briefs on those two issues.
ECF Nos. 339 ("Def. Opening Br."), 340
14
("Pl. Opening Br.").
15
11, 2015.
16
Br.").
17
suitable for resolution without oral argument.
18
Ninth Circuit's Opinion and the parties' briefs and supporting
19
papers, the Court finds as follows:
Response briefs were submitted on September
ECF Nos. 345 ("Pl. Response Br."), 346 ("Def. Response
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter
After reviewing the
20
1. MOL's RICO claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
21
2. The Court AWARDS MOL damages against SeaMaster in the amount
of $1,151,205
22
3. The Court AWARDS MOL damages against Summit in the amount of
$2,122,374
23
24
25
I.
BACKGROUND
The facts are set out in detail in the FFCL.
26
27
part, they are as follows:
28
///
2
In pertinent
1
Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to induce MOL to pay for
Shenzhen, to ports in and around Hong Kong.
4
"Shenzhen door arrangement" was managed and organized by Michael
5
Yip, the head of MOL's Hong Kong office, without MOL's knowledge or
6
authorization.
7
them with more space on MOL's ships and lower surcharges ("origin
8
United States District Court
fake truck moves between factories in inland China, typically
3
For the Northern District of California
2
receiving charges"), and, in return, Defendants would request that
9
MOL book truck moves from inland factories to Hong Kong ports
This so-called
Yip struck a deal with Defendants: He would provide
10
through Rainbow Transportation Co. Ltd. ("Rainbow"), a fake
11
trucking company suggested by Yip.
12
trail and a series of payments and kickbacks, it appeared that
13
Rainbow was actually providing trucking, but, in reality,
14
Defendants or their customers made other arrangements to move their
15
goods from the factory to the port.
16
space and lower origin receiving charges for Defendants and
17
revenues for Rainbow.
Due to a complicated paper
The end result was guaranteed
18
A.
The Ocean Transportation Business
19
Licensed vessel-operating common carriers ("VOCCs") like MOL
20
operate ships that carry cargo over water between foreign ports and
21
the United States.
22
bill of lading evidencing the particulars of the shipment.
23
bill of lading is often referred to as the "master bill of lading."
24
Non-vessel-operating common carriers ("NVOCCs") like SeaMaster
46 U.S.C. §§ 40102(6), (17).
A VOCC issues a
A VOCC
25
US, Summit US, and Kesco Container contract with the public to
26
provide transportation of cargo by water between foreign ports and
27
the United States.
28
transportation from the place of receipt to the place of delivery
The NVOCC assumes responsibility for the
3
1
stated on its bill of lading, which is referred to as the "house
2
bill of lading."
3
vessels.
4
that space to its own customers.
5
The NVOCC does not, however, operate ocean
An NVOCC obtains space on a VOCC's vessel and re-sells
VOCCs and NVOCCs sometimes contract to carry cargo overland,
from the port of discharge to an inland place of delivery, or both.
8
United States District Court
either from an inland place of receipt to the port of loading or
7
For the Northern District of California
6
Carriage that includes both an inland leg and an ocean leg is
9
called "through" or "intermodal transport."
See 46 U.S.C. §
10
40102(25).
11
port to port, from door to door (e.g., from an inland point of
12
origin in Asia to a final inland destination in the United States),
13
from door to port, or from port to door.
14
Thus, VOCCs and NVOCCs may offer carriage of cargo from
In providing intermodal transport, the VOCC or NVOCC may
15
utilize the services of subcontractor railroads, truckers, and
16
other inland carriers.
17
transportation service from Shenzhen, China to Las Vegas, Nevada by
18
utilizing a motor carrier in China for the Shenzhen to Hong Kong
19
leg (a.k.a. a "door move" or "truck move"), an ocean carrier from
20
Hong Kong to Oakland, California, and a motor carrier in the United
21
States for the Oakland to Las Vegas leg.
22
VOCC's master bill of lading would show the port of Hong Kong as
23
the place of receipt and the port of Oakland as the place of
24
delivery.
25
the place of receipt and Las Vegas as the place of delivery.
26
VOCC could offer this same intermodal transport.
For example, an NVOCC may provide
In this example, the
The NVOCC's house bill of lading would show Shenzhen as
27
B.
28
Plaintiff MOL is a Japanese VOCC.
The
The Parties and Key Players
4
MOL uses general agents to
1
perform its operational functions in Asia and in the United States.
2
MOL (HK) Agency Ltd. ("MOL HK") is MOL's general agent subsidiary
3
for its "South China territory," which encompasses a number of
4
provinces and cities in South China, including Shenzhen, as well as
5
Hong Kong.
6
in Hong Kong.
7
Exs. D-519, D-526, D-527; Tr. 1964-65.
MOL HK is based
Yip Kwok-Wai, a.k.a. Michael Yip, was the district director of
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
MOL HK from sometime in 2009 through 2011, and before that he was
9
MOL's General Manager of Sales and Customer Service for Hong Kong
10
and South China.
11
Yip was in charge of MOL's Hong Kong and South China Sales team,
12
which allocated shipping space among MOL's customers.
13
Yip was the mastermind behind the fraud in this case, though he was
14
not a party to this action.
15
Tr. at 1962-65.
As district director of MOL HK,
Tr. at 2040.
Defendant Kesco Container was incorporated in New York in
16
1994 and primarily deals with ocean freight business.
17
In or around 1995, the Kesco partners entered into an agreement to
18
become the air freight handling agent for a company known as
19
Fashion Merchandising, Inc. ("FMI"), which performed warehousing
20
and trucking services for a number of garment manufacturers.
21
at 1750.
22
transportation needs.
23
direct customer relationship with the Jones Apparel Group ("Jones
24
Apparel"), a large, well-known garment company.
25
FMI became Kesco's biggest customer, comprising over 50 percent of
26
its business.
27
28
Tr. at 1748.
Tr.
In 1997, Kesco Container began to service FMI's ocean
Id.
Around that time, FMI developed a
Id.
As a result,
Tr. at 1750-51.
In or around 2006, a group of companies known as the Summit
Group, acquired FMI for approximately $114 million.
5
Tr. at 1435-
to take over the Jones Apparel business, and the Kesco partners
3
agreed to cooperate with the transition.
4
stages of the transition, Kesco was to be the origin handling agent
5
in Asia for the Jones Apparel business, and the Summit Group was to
6
take over the role of sales agent and destination handling agent in
7
the United States.
8
United States District Court
36.
2
For the Northern District of California
1
culminated in a joint venture between the Kesco partners and Summit
9
US in 2009.
10
The Summit Group informed the Kesco partners that it intended
Tr. at 1038-43.
Tr. at 617.
In the early
The transition ultimately
The Summit Group was created in 2006 and formed a number of
11
subsidiaries, including two companies which would later become
12
Defendants SeaMaster US and Summit US.
13
acquired Kesco's key partner, FMI.
14
of the NVOCC business and ultimately took the Jones Apparel
15
business away from Kesco.
The Summit Group also
Summit US ran the retail side
16
C.
The Shenzhen Door Arrangement
17
The Shenzhen door arrangement was conceived sometime in
18
2000 when Jones Apparel's need for ocean services increased
19
significantly.
20
secure ocean transportation for Jones Apparel cargo.
21
21 supra.
22
strategies for obtaining the freight rates needed to secure the
23
Jones Apparel business and also obtaining "adequate space
24
protection," an arrangement to ensure that MOL reserved adequate
25
space for Jones Apparel cargo on its ships.
26
who was then assistant general manager of Kesco Container HK, took
27
these concerns to Yip at MOL, and Yip recommended the Shenzhen door
28
arrangement.
Tr. at 634-36.
FMI used Kesco's NVOCC services to
FF ¶¶ 17, 20-
There were various discussions at Kesco and FMI about
Tr. at 1012-1013.
6
Tr. at 634-35.
Cheng,
1
Under the arrangement, Yip agreed to provide space protection
Kesco would declare false Shenzhen door shipments, meaning that
4
Kesco would request that MOL arrange trucking for Kesco cargo
5
between inland origins, typically Shenzhen, and ports in and around
6
Hong Kong.
7
from MOL, because the cargo was tendered by the manufacturer or
8
United States District Court
for Kesco cargo.
3
For the Northern District of California
2
exporter at the port.
9
Kesco would pay MOL an "arbitrary," an additional charge for the
Id.
Tr. at 1012, 1019.
In return, Cheng agreed that
In reality, Kesco did not require any trucking
Tr. 634-36, 1012.
Cheng also agreed that
10
trucking between Shenzhen and the port.
11
would be fully reimbursed for that arbitrary.
12
importantly, Cheng agreed to nominate Rainbow Transportation Co.
13
Ltd. ("Rainbow"), a Hong Kong trucking company suggested by Yip, to
14
perform the purported truck moves.
15
Yip agreed that Kesco
Finally and most
Tr. at 1014; Ex. P-84.
MOL paid Rainbow for the door moves, but in reality, Rainbow
16
never performed any trucking.
17
it merely received payments from MOL and made payments to Kesco
18
Container HK.
19
to Kesco Container US, which ultimately paid MOL for the door
20
moves.
21
moves, meaning that MOL paid more to Rainbow than it charged
22
Defendants for trucking.
23
Rainbow received more from MOL than it paid to Defendants.
24
Tr. at 1013-14, 2127-29.
Instead,
Kesco Container HK, in turn, would kick back funds
MOL took a loss on the trucking leg of the Shenzhen door
See Tr. 606-607; Ex. D-595.
Thus,
The master bills of lading issued by MOL reflected a false
25
"Shenzhen door" place of receipt.
Tr. at 1016, 1100.
26
not over-charge its own customers as a result of the arrangement
27
and the house bills of lading issued by Kesco to its customer
28
accurately represented the true place of receipt.
7
Kesco did
See, e.g., Ex.
1
P-111.
The Court also found that Kesco did not share these house
2
bills of lading with MOL or inform MOL that its master bills of
3
lading were incorrect.
SeaMaster did not enter into the Shenzhen door arrangement
4
concerned that MOL was not providing enough vessel space for
7
SeaMaster's shipments to the United States.
8
United States District Court
until early 2009.
6
For the Northern District of California
5
Tr. at 1545-46.
Around that time, Huang was
met with Yip in Hong Kong in early 2009, at which time Yip
9
indicated that he could solve SeaMaster's space problem if Huang
Tr. at 1542.
Huang
10
agreed to the Shenzhen door arrangement.
Tr. at 1544-45.
The
11
arrangement proposed by Yip was substantially similar to the one he
12
had proposed to Cheng nine years earlier: SeaMaster would declare
13
false Shenzhen door shipments and pay an arbitrary for the non-
14
existent trucking, and in return Yip would provide space protection
15
and a trucking company would reimburse SeaMaster for the arbitrary.
16
Tr. at 1545-46.
17
able to obtain lower origin receiving charges by booking Hong Kong
18
port shipments as Shenzhen door shipments.
19
2009 and 2010, SeaMaster booked thousands of shipments through the
20
Shenzhen door arrangement.
21
shipments through its offices in Hong Kong.
As in the arrangement with Cheng, SeaMaster was
Ex. P-263.
Id. at 1594.
Between
SeaMaster booked these
Tr. at 1561-62.
As a result of the information provided by SeaMaster, MOL
22
23
issued master bills of lading that incorrectly identified
24
shipments' place of receipt as Shenzhen.
25
The house bills of lading that SeaMaster issued to its own
26
customers correctly identified a port place of receipt, not
27
Shenzhen.
28
///
See e.g., id.; Tr. at 1567.
8
See, e.g., Ex. P-129.
SeaMaster did not
1
overcharge its own customers as a result of the Shenzhen door
2
arrangement.
3
D.
4
In the Trucking Case, MOL asserted federal claims under the
See Tr. at 1567.
The Trucking Case
5
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18
6
U.S.C. § 1962, as well as claims for intentional and negligent
7
misrepresentation and civil conspiracy.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
9
Because RICO does not apply extraterritorially, the Court
first had to determine whether Defendants' RICO claims were based
10
on acts committed in the United States.
11
"nerve center test," which focuses on "the brains rather than the
12
brawns of the enterprise and examines the decisions effectuating
13
the relationships and common interest of the enterprise's members,
14
and how those decisions are made."
15
omitted).
16
this case were clearly outside of the United States:
17
18
19
The Court applied the
FFLC at 63-64 (quotations
The Court found that "the brains" of the enterprise in
[T]he Shenzhen door arrangement was set up in Hong Kong
by Yip, Cheng, and Huang. All three of these individuals
worked in Hong Kong and directed the arrangement from
Hong Kong.
The Shenzhen door shipments were booked in
Hong Kong. Rainbow, the key to the entire arrangement,
was also located in Hong Kong.
20
21
Id. at 64.
As a result, the Court dismissed MOL's RICO claims with
22
prejudice.
Id.
23
On MOL's claims for intentional misrepresentation, negligent
24
misrepresentation, and conspiracy to commit international
25
misrepresentation, the Court found in favor of MOL and against
26
Defendants Kesco Container, SeaMaster US, and Summit US.
27
28
As to damages, the Court found that the appropriate award was
equivalent to the total amount of MOL's payments to Rainbow over
9
1
the course of the Shenzhen door arrangement.
The Court rejected
2
Defendants' proposal to offset MOL's damages by the amounts that
3
Defendants paid MOL for the non-existent trucking, holding that it
4
would be inequitable to do so.
5
it would be inequitable to credit Defendants for payments made to
6
cover up their fraud.").
7
damages and pre-judgment interest.
Id. at 74-75 ("The Court finds that
The Court also declined to award punitive
Id. at 76-77.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
E.
Issues on Remand
9
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the Court's
10
dismissal of MOL's RICO claim for failure to apply the "pattern of
11
racketeering" test for extraterritoriality set out in United States
12
v. Chao Fan Xu:
13
The district court applied a "nerve center" test when it
dismissed MOL's RICO claim.
However, in [United States
v. Chao Fan Xu], this Court explicitly rejected that
test, explaining that the test to determine whether a
RICO application is extraterritorial is to look "not upon
the place where the deception originated," but "at the
pattern of Defendants' racketeering activity taken as a
whole."
Thus, even if racketeering activity is
"conceived and planned overseas," it may still fall
within the ambit of the statute if "it was executed and
perpetuated in the United States."
The district court
therefore erred when it applied the nerve center test.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd. v. Seamaster Logistics, Inc., No. 13-
21
15848, 2015 WL 4071527, at *2 (9th Cir. July 6, 2015) (internal
22
citations omitted).
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
10
The Ninth Circuit also reversed and remanded the Court's
1
2
calculation of damages based on the total amount that MOL paid
3
Rainbow:
4
The district court erred by . . . failing to use a
reasonable basis of computation to calculate the actual
damages incurred by MOL for reimbursed trucking costs,
origin receiving charge differentials, and lost space
protection premiums.
5
6
7
Id., at *1.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
9 II.
LEGAL STANDARD
10
A.
RICO
11
RICO does not apply extraterritorially.
Chao Fan Xu, 706 F.3d
12
at 974.
Whether an alleged RICO violation is extraterritorial
13
turns on whether there are enough predicate acts in the United
14
States to establish a "pattern of racketeering activity."
15
at 978.
16
racketeering enterprise was "executed and perpetuated in the United
17
States," where the relevant acts in the United States
18
"consummate[d] the purpose of the enterprise," or where the acts
19
committed overseas would have been "a dangerous failure" if not for
20
the acts committed in the United States.
See id.
A RICO claim is not considered extraterritorial where a
Id. at 979.
21
B.
Damages
22
"[R]ecovery in a tort action for fraud is limited to the
23
actual damages suffered by the plaintiff."
24
P.2d 534, 537 (Cal. 1959).
25
reasonable basis of computation be used."
26
P.2d 99, 102 (Cal. Ct. App. 1954).
27
///
28
///
Ward v. Taggart, 336
Further, the law "requires that some
11
Allen v. Gardner, 272
1 III.
DISCUSSION
2
A.
3
To establish RICO liability a plaintiff must prove "conduct"
RICO
Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc. 473 U.S. 479, 496 (1985); Odom
6
v. Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d 541, 547 (9th Cir. 2007).
7
statute, however, does not have extraterritorial reach.
8
United States District Court
of an "enterprise" through a "pattern" of "racketeering" activity.
5
For the Northern District of California
4
Xu, 706 F.3d at 974.
9
RICO if the relevant pattern of racketeering activity occurred
10
11
The RICO
Chao Fan
Thus, a court need not reach the elements of
outside of the United States.
Id.
In United States v. Chao Fan Xu ("Xu"), the Ninth Circuit held
12
that the test to determine whether a RICO application is
13
extraterritorial is to look "at the pattern of Defendants'
14
racketeering activity taken as a whole."
15
rejected the alternative "nerve center test," which assesses
16
extraterritoriality according to the geographical location of "the
17
brains" of the enterprise.
18
geographical location of a racketeering enterprise might still be
19
relevant in some cases.
20
specifically mentioned this case as one such example.
21
geographic location of an enterprise may be relevant under certain
22
factual scenarios, like the . . . schemes at issue in . . . Mitsui
23
O.S.K. Lines.").
24
Id. at 977-79.
The Court
The court noted, however, that the
Id. at 977.
In fact, the court
Id. ("The
The criminal racketeering enterprise at issue in Xu had two
25
parts.
The first part involved diverting funds from the Bank of
26
China to a holding company in Hong Kong, which was conducted
27
"predominantly" in China.
28
it was beyond the reach of RICO.
As to this activity, the court held that
Id. at 978.
12
The second part of
within the U.S. that violated U.S. immigration laws, including
3
using fraudulent visas and passports to enter the U.S., traveling
4
within the U.S. to execute documents in furtherance of the
5
immigration fraud, and opening bank accounts in the U.S., leading
6
to defendants' arrest in the U.S.
7
the overall enterprise was in Asia (including the so-called "nerve
8
United States District Court
the enterprise, however, involved racketeering activities conducted
2
For the Northern District of California
1
center"), the RICO claims at issue were not extraterritorial
9
because the racketeering enterprise was "executed and perpetuated
The court held that while much
10
in the United States," the relevant acts in the United States
11
"consummate[d] the purpose of the enterprise," and the acts
12
committed in Asia would have been "a dangerous failure" if not for
13
the acts committed in the United States.
14
Id. at 979.
In its FFCL, the Court found that the Shenzhen door
15
arrangement was set up in Hong Kong by Yip, Cheng, and Huang, that
16
all three of these individuals worked in Hong Kong and directed the
17
arrangement from there, that the Shenzhen door shipments were
18
booked in Hong Kong, that Rainbow ("the key to the entire
19
arrangement") was located in Hong Kong, and that although Summit,
20
SeaMaster, and Kesco were U.S. corporations, their Hong Kong
21
offices or agents ran the arrangement and their U.S. offices had
22
very little involvement.
23
extent there were any -- do not turn this essentially foreign
24
arrangement, accomplished through foreign predicate acts, into a
25
domestic U.S. RICO claim.
26
The domestic acts in this case -- to the
The domestic acts raised by MOL occurred after the fraud was
27
complete: sending bills of lading to the U.S. with an incorrect
28
place of receipt of Shenzhen, filing contracts with the Federal
13
rates, and reporting information to U.S. Customs that falsely
3
included Shenzhen as the place of receipt for certain cargo.
4
acts were inconsequential when evaluating the Defendants' "pattern
5
of racketeering activity taken as a whole."
6
Unlike the domestic acts in Xu, the domestic acts raised by MOL did
7
not execute or perpetuate the racketeering enterprise in any
8
United States District Court
Maritime Commission that included in them fraudulent trucking
2
For the Northern District of California
1
meaningful way.
9
purpose of the enterprise such that the activity in Hong Kong would
See id. at 979.
These
See id. at 977-79.
Nor did they consummate the
10
have otherwise been a failure.
11
in this case occurred after the fraud had occurred in Hong Kong,
12
were not important to the Defendants' scheme, and were not
13
necessarily illegal insofar as they did not satisfy all the
14
elements of wire or mail fraud.
15
constitute predicate acts for the purposes of a RICO violation.
16
Moreover, even if these acts did amount to mail and wire fraud,
17
they did not establish a pattern of domestic racketeering activity
18
sufficient to justify an application of the RICO statute to what
19
was a foreign scheme to defraud MOL.
20
See id.
Instead, the domestic acts
As a result, they do not
Separate but related, MOL's RICO claim also fails because the
21
domestic acts raised by MOL were not the proximate cause of its
22
damages.
23
2013), the plaintiff alleged RICO claims for extortion, money
24
laundering, and other crimes in connection with the takeover of
25
plaintiff's media businesses in Kazakhstan.
26
applying the Xu pattern of racketeering test, dismissed the
27
complaint on the ground that it sought extraterritorial application
28
of RICO.
In Hourani v. Mirtchev, 943 F. Supp. 2d 159 (D.D.C.
The district court,
The court agreed that the claims had some domestic U.S.
14
citizens, the defendant approved of the extortion scheme from the
3
U.S., and the defendant corporation received payment in U.S. bank
4
accounts for participating in the extortion.
5
concluded that these U.S. contacts were too isolated and peripheral
6
to support a RICO claim and did not change the "essentially
7
foreign" nature of the activity in that case.
8
United States District Court
contact: the individual plaintiff and defendant were both U.S.
2
For the Northern District of California
1
particular, the court held that the RICO claims were
9
extraterritorial because the U.S. activity did not proximately
But the court
Id. at 165-67.
In
10
cause the injuries alleged.
11
City of New York, 559 U.S. 1 (2010) (dismissing a RICO claim
12
because the alleged predicate acts were not the proximate cause of
13
the plaintiff's injuries); Republic of Iraq v. ABB AG, 920 F. Supp.
14
2d 517, 549 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (same).
15
Id. at 167; see also Hemi Grp. LLC v.
Thus, to avoid dismissal, MOL must show that the U.S.-based
16
activity proximately caused its damages.
"[W]hen a court evaluates
17
a RICO claim for proximate causation, the central question it must
18
ask is whether the alleged violation led directly to the
19
plaintiff's injuries."
20
451, 461 (2006).
Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp. 547 U.S.
21
The booking misrepresentations from SeaMaster and Summit in
22
Hong Kong to MOL in Hong Kong, leading to the payments by MOL in
23
Hong Kong to Rainbow in Hong Kong, was the proximate cause of the
24
loss to MOL.
25
of lading data to the U.S. did not cause the loss; indeed, there is
26
no evidence that anyone attached any importance to those acts.
27
28
The subsequent sending of the bills of lading or bill
The cases on which MOL relies are inapposite.
v. Rude is not a RICO case.
United States
88 F.3d 1538 (9th Cir. 1996).
15
The
support a conviction for wire fraud, where funds were wired from
3
Hawaii to Switzerland, and then to the defendants in Seattle, and
4
then partially back to Hawaii.
5
single scheme for purposes of a wire fraud, but it does not show
6
when wire fraud is the proximate cause of a RICO violation.
7
States v. Jinian, 725 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2013) and United
8
United States District Court
question in Rude was whether there was sufficient evidence to
2
For the Northern District of California
1
States v. Redcorn, 528 F.3d 727 (10th Cir. 2008) are not on point
9
for the same reason.
The case shows what constitutes a
United
Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co. does
10
not support MOL's argument either.
11
in Bridge was whether a domestic mail fraud could support a
12
domestic RICO claim when the plaintiff did not rely on the
13
defendant's misrepresentations.
14
553 U.S. 639 (2008).
The issue
In short, MOL's RICO claim is precluded as extraterritorial
15
under the Xu test because the domestic acts raised by MOL did not
16
constitute a "pattern of racketeering activity."
17
predicate acts that took place in Hong Kong, including the booking
18
misrepresentations and associated activity, were the proximate
19
cause of MOL's damages -- not the alleged wire and mail fraud.
20
Accordingly, MOL's RICO claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Further, the
21
B.
Damages
22
On remand, the Ninth Circuit has asked the Court to
23
recalculate the actual loss to MOL based on trucking costs, origin
24
receiving charge differentials, and lost space protection premiums.
25
The parties agree on the amount of lost trucking costs and the
26
amount of origin receiving charge differentials.
27
on whether MOL has proved an amount for lost space protection
28
premiums.
They do not agree
As to punitive damages and prejudgment interest, MOL did
16
1
not appeal, and the Ninth Circuit's decision does not reopen, this
2
Court's denial of those damages claims.
1.
3
Trucking Costs
The Court found that SeaMaster made shipments under the
4
those shipments, MOL paid Rainbow a total of $1,080,073.
7
74.
8
United States District Court
Shenzhen door arrangement from March 5, 2009 to June 30, 2010.
6
For the Northern District of California
5
purported Shenzhen door trucking.
9
Opening Br. at 8.
10
For
FFCL at
For the same shipments, SeaMaster paid MOL $484,740 for the
Def. Opening Br. at 4; Pl.
Thus, the net loss to MOL for trucking costs for
the SeaMaster shipments totals $595,333.
The Court found that Summit made shipments under the Shenzhen
11
12
door arrangement from May 25, 2008 to June 30, 2010.
13
shipments, MOL paid Rainbow a total of $1,987,833.
14
Br. at 5; Pl. Opening Br. at 8, 52.
15
Summit paid MOL a total of $1,233,063 for the purported Shenzhen
16
door trucking.
17
for the Summit shipments totals $754,820.
2.
18
Id.
For these
Def. Opening
For these same shipments,
Thus, the net loss to MOL for trucking costs
Origin Receiving Charge Differentials
The Shenzhen door arrangement allowed the Defendants to secure
19
20
lower surcharges known as "origin receiving charges."
But for the
21
Defendants' fraud, MOL would have received the full surcharge
22
amount.
Accordingly, MOL should be awarded the difference.
The parties agree that the origin receiving charge
23
24
differential equals $71,132 for SeaMaster and $134,491 for Summit.
25
Def. Opening Br. at 4-5; Pl. Opening Br. at 8.
26
should be added to the total damage award.
27
///
28
///
17
These amounts
3.
1
Space Protection
2
In its FFCL, the Court found that MOL was damaged, in part,
3
because Yip gave Defendants free space protection as part of the
4
Shenzhen door arrangement, a service for which MOL generally
5
charges a premium.
6
to value MOL's loss in this regard given the lack of precise data
7
on the price of space protection premiums during that time.
FFCL at 60.
The more difficult question is how
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
MOL argues that it would be reasonable for the Court to
9
calculate the value of the space protection provided based on the
10
amount that the Defendants were willing to pay to secure space
11
protection through their fraudulent scheme.
12
in the absence of more precise data, a reasonable way to value a
13
service such as space protection is to measure the Defendants'
14
willingness to pay.
15
equals the amount that Defendants paid MOL for the fake trucking by
16
Rainbow -- that is, the "arbitrary."
17
does not express Defendants' willingness to pay, however, for at
18
least two reasons.
19
Defendants received more than just space protection; they also
20
received lower origin receiving charges.
21
arbitrary would have to be reduced by the origin receiving charge
22
differential.
23
full refund from Rainbow for the arbitraries they paid MOL.
24
other words, Defendants did not have to pay anything to receive
25
space protection because the arbitrary was simply passed through
26
MOL, to Rainbow, and then sent back to the Defendants.
27
reason, the amount Defendants paid MOL for trucking arbitraries is
28
///
The Court agrees that
MOL argues that Defendants' willingness to pay
The arbitrary paid to MOL
First, as a result of paying MOL the arbitrary,
As a result, the
Second, and more importantly, Defendants received a
18
In
For that
1
meaningless as a measure of the value of the space protection that
2
they received.
3
There appears to be no easy way to measure the value of the
least part of this difficulty is a result of the Defendants'
6
illusive behavior.
7
in calculating a precise damage amount does not mean, however, that
8
United States District Court
space protection provided.
5
For the Northern District of California
4
MOL should be denied all recovery.
9
10
11
As MOL describes in its briefs, at
See Pl. Response Br. at 13-14.
The difficulty
As Witkin explains,
The requirement that damages be "certain" and not
"speculative" or "conjectural" is more important in
contract than in tort actions . . . . [T]hough the fact
of damage must be clearly established, the amount need
not be proved with the same degree of certainty, but may
be left to reasonable approximation or inference.
12
13
6 Witkin, Summary 10th (2005) Torts, § 1551, p. 1024; see also
14
Clemente v. State of Cal., 40 Cal. 3d 202, 219 (1985) (holding that
15
the injured party need only establish "the extent of the harm and
16
the amount of money that will represent adequate compensation with
17
as much certainty as the nature of the tort and the circumstances
18
permit").
19
with certainty is due to a defendant's actions, the law normally
20
does not require such proof.
Further, when a plaintiff's inability to prove damages
Clemente, 40 Cal. 3d at 219.
21
Here, MOL has provided some evidence of the range of prices
22
that were being charged for space protection or similar services
23
during the period of the Shenzhen door arrangement.
24
Opening Br. at 52-53.
25
range from $200 to $1,000.
26
estimates are not specifically for space protection.
27
MOL provided the price for dead freight -- the penalty a cargo
28
owner has to pay when it books a shipment but fails to ship it.
See Pl.
MOL's estimates are hardly precise: they
Id.
Further, many of the price
19
For example,
1
Even though dead freight is not the same as space protection,
2
however, the amount paid for dead freight is still informative
3
insofar as it reflects the price of reserving space in a container.
4
Thus, notwithstanding their imprecision, MOL's price estimates
5
provide a baseline against which the reasonableness of MOL's
6
proposed damages can be evaluated.
MOL has asked the Court to award it $484,740 in damages from
7
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
SeaMaster as compensation for the space protection it provided
9
during the Shenzhen door arrangement.
Seamaster was given space
10
protection for 3,998 containers.2
11
per container.
12
range described above, the Court finds it to be a reasonable
13
estimate of the space protection premiums lost as a result of the
14
Shenzhen door arrangement.
Thus, MOL is requesting $121.24
Because this amount falls below the $200-$1,000
MOL has asked the Court to award it $1,233,063 in damages from
15
16
Summit US as compensation for the space protection it provided
17
during the Shenzhen door arrangement.
18
protection on 8,053 containers.
19
per container.
20
range described above, the Court finds it to be a reasonable
21
///
Summit US was given space
Thus, MOL is requesting $153.11
Because this amount falls below the $200-$1,000
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Defendants dispute the premise that they were given space
protection on all containers shipped under the Shenzhen door
arrangement. The Court disagrees. Regardless of whether
Defendants needed space protection for every container, their
arrangement with Yip guaranteed that they would be provided with
space on all containers. But for the fraud, the Defendants would
have been charged a premium for this guarantee on every container.
Further, the guarantee was valuable to the Defendants: it allowed
them to secure and retain their contracts with large clients such
as Jones/Nine West insofar as it gave them a competitive advantage
over other NVOCCs who either could not obtain space protection or
had to pay a premium for it.
20
1
estimate of the space protection premiums lost as a result of the
2
Shenzhen door arrangement.
4.
3
In sum, the Court awards MOL the following in compensatory
4
5
Damages Summary
damages:
6
Trucking
Costs
7
ORC
Differentials
Space
Protection
TOTAL
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
SeaMaster
$595,333
$71,132
$484,740
$1,151,205
8
Summit
$754,820
$134,491
$1,233,063
$2,122,374
9
TOTAL
$1,350,153
$205,623
$1,717,803
$3,273,579
10
11 IV.
12
13
14
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds as follows:
1.
MOL's RICO claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
2.
The Court AWARDS MOL damages against SeaMaster in the
amount of $1,151,205
3.
The Court AWARDS MOL damages against Summit in the amount
of $2,122,374
15
16
17
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21
5
Dated: October __, 2015
22
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
21
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?