Cook v. Champion Tankers AS

Filing 39

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON 14 Motion to Dismiss, DENYING Request for Discovery Pertainint to Motion to Dismiss Based on Forum Non Conveniens, Requiring Further Briefing, and VACATING Case Management Conference. Replies due by 2/5/2013. Responses due by 1/29/2013. Motion Hearing set for 3/1/2013 09:00 AM in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jeffrey S. White. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on January 15, 2013. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/15/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 THOMAS COOK, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 No. C 12-01965 JSW Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY PERTAINING TO MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS, REQUIRING FURTHER BRIEFING, CONTINUING HEARING DATE, AND VACATING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE v. CHAMPION TANKERS AS, Defendant. 14 15 / 16 17 Now before the Court for consideration is the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant 18 Champion Tankers AS (“CT”). CT moved to dismiss on the bases of res judicata, collateral 19 estoppel, lack of personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens. Pursuant to stipulation, the 20 parties agreed that the Court should bifurcate the issues of res judicata and collateral estoppel 21 and resolve those issues in the first instance. CT’s motion is premised on its argument that this 22 action is barred by a ruling in Cook v. Champion Shipping AS, in which the district court 23 dismissed on the basis of forum non conveniens. 732 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (E.D. Cal. 2010), aff’d 24 463 Fed. Appx. 626 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Cook I”). 25 When the parties agreed to bifurcate the issues presented in CT’s motion, they also 26 agreed that those issues “pose[d] no issues of fact, require[d] no preliminary discovery, and 27 [could] be briefed, submitted, and decided as a pure matter of law.” (Docket No. 33, Stipulation 28 and Order Bifurcating Hearing on Motion to Dismiss at 1:27-2:2 (emphasis added).) Although 1 he agreed that discovery was not necessary, Plaintiff, Thomas Cook (“Cook”), now requests the 2 opportunity to conduct discovery to show that there are material factual differences between 3 this case and Cook I. Cook argues that this discovery is necessary to show that the ruling in 4 Cook I does not have preclusive effect in this case. The Court concludes that Cook has not 5 shown that any further discovery is necessary to resolve the issue of forum non conveniens, and 6 it DENIES his request to conduct discovery on that issue. 7 In addition, having reviewed the parties’ papers and the arguments presented on whether the issue of whether this case should be dismissed on the basis of forum non conveniens fully 10 briefed. Because CT has fully briefed this issue in its motion, it is HEREBY ORDERED that 11 For the Northern District of California collateral estoppel bars Cook’s claims, the Court concludes that it would be beneficial to have 9 United States District Court 8 Cook shall file a supplemental opposition brief on this issue, and any supporting evidence, by 12 no later than January 29, 2013. Cook’s opposition brief shall not exceed ten (10) pages. CT’s 13 supplemental reply, which also shall not exceed ten pages, shall be due by no later than 14 February 5, 2013. 15 The Court HEREBY CONTINUES the hearing scheduled for January 18, 2013 to 16 March 1, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. If the Court finds the motion suitable for disposition without oral 17 argument, it will advise the parties in advance of the hearing date. 18 The Court VACATES the initial case management conference scheduled for February 8, 19 2013 at 1:30 p.m., and it shall reschedule the case management conference, if necessary, once it 20 has resolved the pending motion. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 15, 2013 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?