Volumecocomo Apparel, Inc. v. Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. et al

Filing 71

ORDER for Supplemental Briefing and Order Vacating June 8, 2012 Hearing.. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 6/7/2012. (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/7/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 VOLUMECOCOMO APPAREL, INC., 8 Plaintiff, v. 10 Northern District of California United States District Court 9 11 12 EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL OF WASHINGTON, INC.; EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL OCEAN, Defendants. 13 14 15 HANJIN SHIPPING CO., LTD., Third-Party Plaintiff, 16 17 18 v. GEMADEPT CORP., 19 Third-Party Defendant. 20 21 22 EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL OF WASHINGTON, INC., Third-Party Plaintiff, 23 24 25 v. GEMADEPT CORP., 26 Third-Party Defendant. 27 28 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 11-4201-SC ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING AND ORDER VACATING JUNE 8, 2012 HEARING 1 Now before the Court are two motions for reconsideration and 2 two motions to dismiss, all set for hearing on June 8, 2012. 3 Nos. 42, 47, 49, 51. 4 issues related to whether it may properly exercise personal 5 jurisdiction over third-party defendant Gemadept. 6 ECF The Court seeks supplemental briefing on two The first issue was raised for the first time in Gemadept's 7 response to the motions for reconsideration and, thus, has not yet 8 been addressed by either Expeditors or Hanjin. 9 Gemadept argues that the Agreement of Carriage, the contract on Specifically, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 which Expeditors and Hanjin's jurisdictional arguments are based, 11 only covers the transportation of cargo between "Singapore, Port 12 Klang, Kaohsiung, Hong Kong and all major Vietnam ports," and does 13 not cover any ports in Cambodia. 14 Agreement of Carriage ยง 1.01). 15 of Carriage does not apply to this dispute because the cargo at 16 issue was shipped from Cambodia to Vietnam. 17 ECF No. 50 at 2, n.1 (citing Gemadept reasons that the Agreement The second issue relates to Hanjin and Expeditors' argument 18 that section 3(a) of the Hanjin Bill of Lading justifies the 19 exercise of personal jurisdiction since it provides for the 20 resolution of disputes at "the place of receipt of the Goods by the 21 Carrier, or the port of discharge," i.e., Long Beach, California. 22 As Long Beach does not lie within the jurisdictional boundaries of 23 the Northern District of California, it is unclear why section 3(a) 24 would support the exercise of jurisdiction here. 25 Within seven (7) days of this Order, Hanjin, Gemadept, and 26 Expeditors shall each file one brief with the Court addressing the 27 two issues described above. 28 pages in length. Each brief shall not exceed eight (8) No response briefs are required or permitted. 2 1 The hearing on the motions to dismiss and the motions to 2 reconsider, set for June 8, 2012, is hereby VACATED. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 7 Dated: June 7, 2012 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?