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)

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 § 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