Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01634/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01634-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TREVOR MOSS, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

NUI PHAO MINING JOINT VENTURE 

COMPANY, LTD.; TML ACQUISITIONS 

LTD; JOHN SHRIMPTON; DRAGON 

CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED; 

ENTERPRISE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT 

LIMITED; VIETNAM ENTERPRISE 

INVESTMENTS LIMITED; TIBERON 

MINERALS PTE LTD.; VIETNAM GROWTH 

FUND LIMITED; VIETNAM DRAGON FUND 

LIMITED; and DOES 1 through 25, 

inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 10-1634 SC 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS

 

I. INTRODUCTION

Now before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by 

Defendants Dragon Capital Management Limited, John Shrimpton 

("Shrimpton"), Enterprise Investment Management Limited, Vietnam 

Enterprise Investments Limited, Tiberon Minerals Pte Ltd. ("Tiberon 

PTE"), Vietnam Growth Fund Limited, Vietnam Dragon Fund Limited, 

and Nui Phao Mining Joint Venture Company, Ltd. ("Nui Phao") 

(collectively, the "Defendants"). ECF No. 18 ("Mot."). Plaintiff 

Trevor Moss ("Plaintiff" or "Moss") filed an Opposition, and 

Defendants submitted a Reply. ECF Nos. 32 ("Opp'n"), 37 ("Reply"). 

Case 3:10-cv-01634-SC Document 46 Filed 08/13/10 Page 1 of 11
2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion 

to Dismiss.1 

II. BACKGROUND

A. Moss's Allegations

Moss is a mining engineer, providing consulting engineering 

services, and he resides in Sonoma County, California. ECF No. 1 

("Notice of Removal") Ex. A ("Compl.") ¶ 1. Moss was hired to 

provide consulting services in connection with a mining project in 

Vietnam. Id. ¶ 14. Moss seeks payment of a bonus allegedly due to 

him under the terms of an August 2005 Consulting Agreement between 

Nui Phao and Moss. Id. ¶¶ 14-18; Ex. A ("Consulting Agreement"). 

The agreement states that Moss's annual rate of compensation was 

$250,000. Id. § 2(a). It states that "Moss shall participate in 

the formal bonus plan adopted by the Company. The bonus to Moss is 

based on predetermined annual objectives agreed upon each year . . 

. and shall be set at a target of 0 to 75% of Moss's prior twelve 

(12) month consulting fee with a target of 40% as a bonus." Id. 

§ 2(b). Tiberon Minerals Ltd. ("Original Tiberon") guaranteed 

performance of the obligations in the Consulting Agreement. Id. 

¶ 20, Ex. B ("Guarantee"). 

Plaintiff alleges that TML, a company incorporated in British 

Columbia, Canada, is the successor-in-interest to Original Tiberon. 

Id. ¶ 6. Defendants allege that TML no longer exists. Notice of 

Removal ¶ 3. Plaintiff alleges that all of the assets of TML have 

 

1

 Defendants also requested additional time to respond to 

Plaintiff's Complaint. ECF No. 16. Defendants requested until May 

21, 2010, and Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss on that 

date. Plaintiff has not opposed the request. The Court GRANTS 

Defendants' request. 

Case 3:10-cv-01634-SC Document 46 Filed 08/13/10 Page 2 of 11
3 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

been transferred to Tiberon PTE, an entity controlled by Dragon 

Capital Management Limited, Shrimpton, Enterprise Investment 

Management Limited, Vietnam Enterprise Investments Limited; Vietnam 

Growth Fund Limited, and Vietnam Dragon Fund Limited (collectively, 

the "Dragon Defendants"). Id. ¶ 5-7, 20. Plaintiff alleges that 

Original Tiberon was merged with TML on September 1, 2007. Id. 

¶ 7. 

Plaintiff has sued Nui Phao for breach of contract; TML and 

Tiberon PTE for breach of the guarantee; Nui Phao, TML and Tiberon 

PTE for violation of California's Labor Code; and the Dragon 

Defendants, TML and Tiberon PTE for interference with contract. 

Id. ¶¶ 13-33. 

B. Previous Lawsuits

This case is the third one filed by Moss seeking payment of 

the bonus. The first case was filed on May 23, 2007. See Case No. 

07-2732 ("Moss I"). Moss alleged that Original Tiberon breached a 

contract and violated California's Labor Code. See Defs.' Request 

for Judicial Notice ("Defs.' RJN") Ex. 1 ("Moss I Compl.").2

 This 

Court dismissed that case on forum non conveniens grounds. Defs.' 

 

2

 Defendants request the Court to take judicial notice of documents 

filed before this Court in the previous lawsuits, and the Ninth 

Circuit's memorandum affirming this Court's dismissal of Moss's 

first lawsuit. ECF No. 19. The Court can take judicial notice of 

facts not subject to reasonable dispute. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). 

The Court can take judicial notice of court proceedings that have a 

direct relation to matters at issue. United States ex rel. 

Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 

248 (9th Cir.1992). Although the Court may take judicial notice of 

its own records, it cannot take judicial notice of the truth of the 

contents of all documents found therein. M/V American Queen v. San 

Diego Marine Constr. Corp., 708 F.2d 1483, 1491 (9th Cir. 1983). 

The Court GRANTS the request for judicial notice, but only to the 

extent that the documents are used to argue the preclusive effect 

of the Court's previous forum non conveniens determination. 

Case 3:10-cv-01634-SC Document 46 Filed 08/13/10 Page 3 of 11
4 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

RJN Ex. 5 ("Nov. 1, 2007 Order"). The Consulting Agreement at 

issue in Moss I is the same agreement at issue here. It states 

that its provisions "shall be governed by, interpreted, and 

enforced in accordance with the laws in force in the Province of 

Ontario." Id. at 2; Consulting Agreement § 11. At the time Moss 

was hired, Original Tiberon was a Canadian corporation. Nov. 1, 

2007 Order at 1. 

This Court found that Ontario, Canada, was an adequate 

alternative forum, and that the balance of private and public 

interest factors tipped in favor of dismissal. Id. at 3-8. The 

Court granted Original Tiberon's motion to dismiss on the condition 

that it submit to jurisdiction in Canada and waive any statute of 

limitations defenses. Id. at 12. The Ninth Circuit affirmed this 

Court's dismissal of Moss I. Defs.' RJN Ex. 6 ("Oct. 14, 2009 

Ninth Cir. Mem."). 

Plaintiff filed a second action on January 9, 2009. See Case 

No. 09-0109 ("Moss II"). Moss filed an Amended Complaint on May 5, 

2009, against the Dragon Defendants, TML, and Tiberon PTE alleging 

intentional interference with contract. RJN Ex. 2 ("Moss II Am. 

Compl."). Moss alleged that these defendants deliberately 

interfered with the Consulting Agreement and prevented Moss from 

receiving his bonus. Id. ¶ 25. After defendants in Moss II filed 

a motion to dismiss, Moss filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on 

January 29, 2010. 

On May 1, 2009, Moss filed this action in Sonoma County 

Superior Court. See Compl. Defendants removed the case to federal 

court. See Notice of Removal. Defendants are the same as in Moss 

II, with the addition of Nui Phao, and the claims asserted here 

Case 3:10-cv-01634-SC Document 46 Filed 08/13/10 Page 4 of 11
5 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

combine the claims from Moss I and Moss II. See Compl.; Moss I

Compl.; Moss II Am. Compl. Defendants filed a motion to relate 

this case to the previous two, which the Court granted on April 27, 

2010. ECF Nos. 4, 12. 

Defendants move to dismiss this third lawsuit contending that 

the Court's forum non conveniens ruling precludes this lawsuit. 

Mot. at 3, 16-19. Defendants also contend the Court lacks personal 

jurisdiction over them, and that Moss did not properly serve them. 

Id. 4-16, 20-23. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Courts can dismiss an action on the grounds of preclusion. 

Hawkins v. Risley, 984 F.2d 321, 324 (9th Cir. 1993); McClain v. 

Apodaca, 793 F.2d 1031, 1032-33 (9th Cir. 1986). "Collateral 

estoppel, or issue preclusion, bars the relitigation of issues 

actually adjudicated in previous litigation between the same 

parties." Clark v. Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., 966 F.2d 1318, 1320 

(9th Cir. 1992). "Dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds does 

not establish claim preclusion; . . . but issue preclusion is 

appropriate if the issue actually remains the same." 18A Wright, 

Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction, § 

4436, at 173-74 (2d ed. 2002). To avoid the preclusive effect of a 

prior forum non conveniens determination, the plaintiff must show 

objective facts relevant to the issue that materially alter the 

considerations underlying the previous resolution. Villar v. 

Crowley Maritime Corp., 990 F.2d 1489, 1498 (5th Cir. 1993); China 

Tire Holdings Ltd. v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 91 F. Supp. 2d 

Case 3:10-cv-01634-SC Document 46 Filed 08/13/10 Page 5 of 11
6 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

1106, 1110 (N.D. Ohio 2000); Torreblanca de Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 

806 F. Supp. 139, 141-42 (E.D. Tex. 1992). 

IV. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff contends that when the motion to dismiss was filed 

in Moss I, Original Tiberon no longer existed, and Plaintiff 

implies that if the Court was aware of this fact it would have 

materially altered the considerations underlying the Court's 

previous forum non conveniens determination. Opp'n at 3, 8. 

Defendants confirm that Original Tiberon and TML merged on 

September 1, 2007. Shrimpton Decl. ¶ 4.3 This fact does not 

materially alter the considerations underlying the Court's previous 

determination. 

A. Canada Is an Adequate Alternative Forum

In its Order dismissing Moss I, this Court noted that the 

precise location of Original Tiberon's principal place of business 

was tangential to its holding. See Nov. 1, 2007 Order at 2. 

Instead, the Court relied on the Consulting Agreement's Governing 

Law provision, which states that its provisions shall be 

interpreted in accordance with the laws in force in the Province of 

Ontario, and the Court relied on Original Tiberon's agreement to 

submit to jurisdiction in Canada. November 1, 2007 Order at 3. 

Here, Shrimpton declares that Tiberon PTE has assumed the 

obligations and liabilities of Original Tiberon. Shrimpton Decl. 

¶ 24. David Woodhouse ("Woodhouse"), a Director of Tiberon PTE, 

 

3

 Shrimpton's declaration was filed in Moss II. The declaration is 

attached as Exhibit 3 to Defendants' request for judicial notice, 

ECF No. 19, and as previously explained, the Court takes judicial 

notice of this declaration. 

Case 3:10-cv-01634-SC Document 46 Filed 08/13/10 Page 6 of 11
7 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

also declares that Tiberon PTE has assumed the liabilities of 

Original Tiberon. Woodhouse Decl. ¶ 5.4 Therefore, Plaintiff can 

assert his breach-of-guarantee claim in Canada against Tiberon PTE. 

Furthermore, Nui Phao is the party that signed the Consulting 

Agreement, and hence Moss can assert his breach-of-contract claim 

in Canada against Nui Phao, a company which continues to exist. 

See Shrimpton Decl. ¶ 3. Defendants state that: 

Tiberon Minerals Pte, Ltd. has assumed the 

contractual obligation, if any, of Original 

Tiberon to Moss. To the extent that it is 

therefore standing in the shoes of Original 

Tiberon, Tiberon Minerals Pte, Ltd. accepts 

litigating the matter in Canada (or if 

plaintiff prefers in Vietnam), and accepts the 

[sic] meeting the conditions placed on Original 

Tiberon by this Court in granting the forum non

conveniens motion. The remaining defendants 

also accept the conditions placed on Original 

Tiberon in this Court's forum non conveniens

dismissal. 

Mot. at 4. Because Tiberon PTE is "standing in its shoes of 

Original Tiberon," and because Nui Phao also accepts submitting to 

jurisdiction in Canada, it remains the case that Ontario, Canada, 

is an adequate alternative forum for Moss's efforts to enforce the 

terms of the Consulting Agreement and Guarantee. 

B. The Private and Public Interest Factors

Plaintiff has not drawn the Court's attention to any facts 

materially altering the Court's previous determine with regard to 

the public and private interest factors; they still tip in favor of 

dismissal. Original Tiberon's books and records are still in 

storage in Canada. Woodhouse Decl. ¶ 6. The Court has not been 

presented with any reason to question its previous determination 

 

4

 Woodhouse filed a declaration in support of the Motion to 

Dismiss. ECF No. 27. 

Case 3:10-cv-01634-SC Document 46 Filed 08/13/10 Page 7 of 11
8 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

concerning the availability of witnesses. It also remains the case 

that a Canadian court would be able to apply Canadian contract law 

more efficiently than this Court. See Nov. 1, Order at 5-6. 

With regard to the public interest factors, it is still true 

that "the primary issue to be decided in this case, whether Moss 

met the agreed upon benchmarks and therefore was entitled to a 

bonus, is governed by Canadian law." Id. at 6. Canadian courts 

are more familiar with Canadian law than this Court, so the 

preference for having a forum apply a law with which it is familiar 

still favors dismissal. 

C. Interference with Contract Claim

Plaintiff's Complaint contains a new claim that the Dragon 

Defendants, TML, and Tiberon PTE interfered with Plaintiff's 

contract with Nui Phao. Compl. ¶¶ 28-33. Moss alleges that the 

terms of a December 18, 2006 Pre-Acquisition Agreement prevented 

Original Tiberon and Nui Phao from paying Moss his bonus. Id. ¶¶ 

29-33; Hanavan Decl. ¶¶ 7-12, Ex. E ("Pre-Acquisition Agreement").5

 

Moss alleges that "only DRAGON CAPITAL'S founder and two Tiberon 

representatives, but no NUI PHAO representatives, purportedly 

considered the Trevor Moss bonus payment," that "Tiberon's 

management had agreed . . . not to approve any bonus for Mr. Moss 

without DRAGON CAPITAL'S prior approval," and that "the DRAGON 

CAPITAL DEFENDANTS prevented and precluded NUI PHAO's majority 

owner from honoring NUI PHAO's contractual obligations. . . ." 

Compl. ¶¶ 30-31. 

This new interference with contract claim does not materially 

 

5

 James M. Hanavan ("Hanavan"), counsel for Plaintiff, filed a 

declaration in support of Plaintiff's Opposition. ECF No. 36. 

Case 3:10-cv-01634-SC Document 46 Filed 08/13/10 Page 8 of 11
9 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

alter the Court's previous determination that Ontario, Canada, is 

the appropriate forum for Plaintiff's claims. The Pre-Acquisition 

Agreement contains a Governing Law provision stating that it "shall 

be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the 

Province of Ontario and the laws of Canada applicable therein." 

Pre-Acquistion Agreement § 11. Shrimpton declares that Cliff 

Davis, an independent outside director of Original Tiberon, and 

Mario Caron, President of Original Tiberon, discussed Moss's bonus 

request in Toronto, Canada, on February 14, 2007, and that he 

attended an Original Tiberon Compensation Committee meeting at the 

same location the next day. Shrimpton Decl. ¶ 11. It therefore 

appears that the decision not to pay Moss a bonus was made in 

Toronto, Canada, and interpreting the Pre-Acquistion Agreement 

would require the Court to apply Canadian law. Therefore, if 

anything, Moss's new interference with contract claim strengthens, 

rather than weakens, the Court's previous determination that 

Ontario, Canada, is the proper forum for resolution of Moss's 

claims. 

D. New Defendants

Finally, Moss argues the present lawsuit is not precluded by 

collateral estoppel because it is against an entirely different 

group of defendants. Opp'n at 12. The Defendants in this case can 

still rely on the preclusive effect of the Court's forum non

conveniens determination. Federal courts permit non-mutual issue 

preclusion, and "defensive use of collateral estoppel precludes a 

plaintiff from relitigating identical issues by merely 'switching 

adversaries.'" Parklane Hosiery Co. Inc. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 

329 (1979). "It is well established that collateral estoppel can 

Case 3:10-cv-01634-SC Document 46 Filed 08/13/10 Page 9 of 11
10 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

operate in favor of a party which did not litigate the earlier 

case, in appropriate circumstances." Columbia Steel Fabricators, 

Inc. v. Ahlstrom Recovery, 44 F.3d 800, 802 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing 

Green v. Ancora-Citronelle Corp., 577 F.2d 1380, 1383-84 (9th Cir. 

1978)). 

Here, Defendants can use collateral estoppel defensively, to 

prevent Moss from re-litigating the issue of whether California is 

the appropriate forum for his claims, and to prevent his suit from 

going forward in this Court. As previously determined, the 

question of whether Moss should be paid a bonus is a question for a 

Canadian court to decide. See Nov. 1, 2007 Order. Plaintiff is 

precluded from bringing suit here, and so the Court does not reach 

Defendants' contention that this Court has no personal jurisdiction 

over any of the Defendants, or the contention that Defendants were 

not properly served. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 3:10-cv-01634-SC Document 46 Filed 08/13/10 Page 10 of 11
11 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Motion to Dismiss filed by 

Defendants Dragon Capital Management Limited, John Shrimpton, 

Enterprise Investment Management Limited, Vietnam Enterprise 

Investments Limited; Tiberon Minerals Pte Ltd., Vietnam Growth Fund 

Limited, Vietnam Dragon Fund Limited, and Nui Phao Mining Joint 

Venture Company, Ltd. is GRANTED. These Defendants must submit to 

jurisdiction in Ontario, Canada. As long as Plaintiff Trevor Moss 

files suit in Canada against these Defendants within two years from 

the date of this Order, Defendants must waive any statute of 

limitations defenses. This case is DISMISSED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 13, 2010 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-01634-SC Document 46 Filed 08/13/10 Page 11 of 11