Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03605/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03605-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

THOMAS COOK, JASON K. ARNOLD,

JACK L. DURHAM, JOHN M.

HUNTER, III, LARZ A. STEWART,

and ELIZABETH H. ZEIGER

NO. CIV. 2:09-CV-03605 FCD/DAD

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CHAMPION SHIPPING AS and

CHAMPION TANKERS AS,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

----oo0oo----

Plaintiffs Thomas Cook, Jason K. Arnold, Jack L. Durham,

John M. Hunter, III, Larz A. Stewart, and Elizabeth H. Zeiger

(“plaintiffs”) bring this action in the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of California against defendants

Champion Shipping, AS, and Champion Tankers, AS, (collectively

“defendants”) seeking damages for injuries allegedly resulting

from a collision in international waters off the coast of Taiwan

between defendants’ vessel M/V Champion Express (“Champion 

Case 2:09-cv-03605-FCD-DAD Document 50 Filed 08/04/10 Page 1 of 18
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

1 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders the matter submitted on the briefs. 

E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g).

2 Plaintiffs also move to strike declarations submitted

in support of defendant’s reply memorandum, arguing that

defendant’s reply should be limited to the facts raised in the

moving and opposition papers. The Ninth Circuit has held “where

new evidence is presented in a reply . . . , the district court

should not consider the new evidence without giving the nonmovant an opportunity to respond.” Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d

1478, 1483 (9th Cir. 1996) (internal quotations omitted). 

However, the court finds the declarations respond to discrete

issues raised by plaintiffs’ in their opposition brief, and do

not raise new facts or arguments. Moreover, given the

stipulations by the parties to continue the hearing almost two

months later than the initial hearing date, plaintiffs have had

ample opportunity to respond to the declarations, but have failed

to do so. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion to strike is DENIED. 

2

Express”), a shipping tanker registered in Liberia, and

plaintiffs’ vessel, the S/V Princess Taiping (“the Taiping”), a

small, replica 15th century Chinese sailing vessel registered in

Hong Kong and owned by Tmax Strategy & Marketing Limited. This

matter is before the court on defendant Champion Shipping AS’s

motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens. 

Plaintiffs oppose the motion. For the reasons set forth below,1

defendant’s motion is GRANTED.2

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of an alleged collision between the

MV Champion Express and the Taiping that occurred in

international waters off the coast of Taiwan on April 26, 2009

(“the Collision”). The Champion Express is a large, 609-foot

chemical tanker owned by Champion Shipping and operated by

Champion Tankers. The Taiping was a 53-foot wooden replica of a

15th century Chinese vessel commissioned by Taiwanese national

Liu Ningsheng. The Taiping was nearing the completion of an

Case 2:09-cv-03605-FCD-DAD Document 50 Filed 08/04/10 Page 2 of 18
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

3

extended voyage when the alleged collision occurred off the coast

of Taiwan, destroying the vessel. (Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss,

(“MTD”), filed Apr. 12, 2010, at 2.) Following the collision,

the Taiping’s crew members were rescued by the Taiwanese Air

Force and Coast Guard, who transported them to Taiwan and issued

a report on the incident. (Compl. ¶ 13; Decl. of George David

Lamplough (“Lamplough Decl.”), filed Apr. 12, 2010, ¶ 3.4.)

On August 28, 2009, Champion Shipping issued a Writ of

Summons to initiate a limitation proceeding before the Admiralty

Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Court of

First Instance(the “Hong King Admiralty Court”). (MTD at 4;

Lamplough Decl. ¶ 3.7.) By initiating the proceeding, the owners

of Champion Express voluntarily submitted to that court’s

jurisdiction and consented to service of process in Hong Kong. 

(Lamplough Decl. ¶ 3.7.) Champion subsequently sent a copy of

the Summons to plaintiffs, as well as Tmax, Taiping Master Liu

Ning Sheng, and passenger Chao Hsiu Ying. Tmax, Sheng, and Ying,

along with Taiping First Mate Yuquan Tang, filed acknowledgments

of service in Hong Kong. (Id. at ¶ 3.9.) On September 24, 2009,

Champion Shipping issued a Summons for a Limitation Decree,

notice of which was sent to plaintiffs. (Id. at ¶ 3.10.) On

November 10, 2009, the Hong Kong court issued a Limitation

Decree, copies of which were sent to plaintiffs’ attorneys in

California. (Id. at ¶ 3.14.) Champion Shipping stipulated to an

extension of time for plaintiffs to file claims in the Hong Kong

action up to and including August 10, 2010 (Id. at 3.18), and

have stipulated to further extension if necessary. (Id. at

4.35.)

Case 2:09-cv-03605-FCD-DAD Document 50 Filed 08/04/10 Page 3 of 18
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

3 Plaintiffs have secured quasi in rem jurisdiction over

Champion Shipping AS, and are presently attempting to secure

personal jurisdiction over Champion Tankers AS.

4

Plaintiffs filed the present action on December 30, 2009,

seeking to recover damages for physical and emotional injuries

resulting from the collision.3 This is one of two related

actions arising out of the collision, both of which were brought

by Taiping crew members. Two of the 6 plaintiffs in this action

are California citizens. The remaining four plaintiffs are

citizens of Hawaii. Both plaintiffs in the related action,

Kinjo, et al. v. Champion Shipping AS, et al., No. 2:09-CV-03603-

FCD DAD (“the Japanese action”), are Japanese citizens. The

Champion Express S/V was crewed by 25 individuals at the time of

the collision. (MTD at 3.) 24 crew members were citizens of

India, and one was a citizen of Greece. (Id.) Plaintiffs

obtained a Letter of Undertaking for this and the Japanese action

in the amount of $10.5 million. (Decl. of John M. Toriello

(“Toriello Decl.”), filed Apr. 12, 2010, ¶ 4.) Champion agrees

to amend the Letter of Undertaking in order to secure any

judgment rendered by the Hong Kong Admiralty Court for both these

plaintiffs and the plaintiffs in the Japanese action in the event

the present action is dismissed by this court for forum non

conveniens. (Id.)

ANALYSIS

Emphasizing the foreign jurisdiction agreements already

existing between the owners of the Taiping and Champion Shipping

as well as the fact that only two of the litigants in this action

are residents of California, defendant moves to dismiss this

Case 2:09-cv-03605-FCD-DAD Document 50 Filed 08/04/10 Page 4 of 18
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

4 Plaintiffs and defendant agree that this is not a

(continued...)

5

action on the basis of forum non conveniens, arguing, “[i]t is

clear that the central focus for this claim and all other claims

related to [the collision] is Asia and the most convenient

location to resolve these claims is in Hong Kong.” (MTD at 6.) 

Plaintiffs respond that defendant cannot make a showing

sufficient to overcome the presumption that their chosen forum is

correct and should be respected.

A court has “the discretion to decline jurisdiction in a

case where litigation in a foreign forum would be more convenient

for the parties.” Lueck v. Sundstrand Corp., 236 F.3d 1137, 1142

(9th Cir. 2001) (citing) Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501,

504 (1947). A party moving for dismissal on forum non conveniens

grounds has the burden of showing: (1) whether an adequate

alternative forum exists; and (2) whether the balance of private

and public interest factors favors dismissal. Ceramic Corp. of

America v. Inka Maritime Corp., 1 F.3d 947, 949 (9th Cir. 1993).

There is a strong presumption to honor a plaintiff’s choice of

forum, but a court may balance that presumption against the

“private interests” and “public interests” of litigating in a

foreign country. Lueck, 236 F.3d at 1145. The Ninth Circuit

considers the following “private interests” in its analysis:

(1) the residence of the parties and the witnesses;

(2) the forum’s convenience to the litigants;

(3) access to physical evidence and other sources of

proof;

(4) whether unwilling witnesses can be compelled to

testify;

(5) the cost of bringing witnesses to trial;

(6) the enforceability of the judgment;4 and

Case 2:09-cv-03605-FCD-DAD Document 50 Filed 08/04/10 Page 5 of 18
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

4(...continued)

significant factor.

6

(7) all other practical problems that make trial of a

case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive.

Id. (citing Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508). In addition, the Ninth

Circuit considers the following “public interests”:

(1) local interest of lawsuit;

(2) the court’s familiarity with governing law;

(3) burden on local courts and juries;

(4) congestion in the court; and

(5) the costs of resolving a dispute unrelated to this

forum.

Id. at 1147 (citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235,

259-61 (1981)). A court should consider the “private interest”

and “public interest” factors applicable to a case before it and

give appropriate weight to each factor. Id. at 1145 (citing Gulf

Oil, 330 U.S. at 508 (citations omitted)). A court “should

consider [these factors] together in arriving at a balanced

conclusion.” Id.

I. Adequacy Of Alternative Forum

The requirement of an alternative forum is generally

satisfied when the defendant is amenable to process in the other

jurisdiction. See Lockman Found. v. Evangelical Alliance

Mission, 930 F.2d 764, 768 (9th Cir. 1991). This requirement may

not be satisfied, however, in “rare circumstances ... where the

remedy offered by the other forum is clearly unsatisfactory.” 

Piper, 454 U.S. at 256. However, “[a] foreign forum must only

provide the plaintiff with ‘some’ remedy in order for the

alternative forum to be adequate.” Loya v. Starwood Hotels &

Case 2:09-cv-03605-FCD-DAD Document 50 Filed 08/04/10 Page 6 of 18
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

7

Resorts Worldwide, Inc., 583 F.3d 656, 666 (9th Cir. 2009)

(citing Lueck, 236 F.3d at 1143-44 (rejecting the plaintiffs’

argument that New Zealand offered no remedy for their losses

because it has legislated tort law out of existence, and noting

that the district court was not required to ask whether

plaintiffs could bring this lawsuit there but rather, whether New

Zealand offered “a” remedy)). A forum is not inadequate simply

because its laws offer a plaintiff lesser remedy than its

American counterpart. Lueck, 236 F.3d at 1143 (citing Piper, 454

U.S. at 240); Loya, 583 F.3d at 666 (“[T]hat the law, or the

remedy afforded, is less favorable in the foreign forum is not

determinative.”). 

In this case, both Champion Shipping AS, and Champion

Tankers AS, through a signed declaration of its Managing Director

Arne Viste, have expressly agreed to submit to the jurisdiction

of the Hong Kong Admiralty court. (Supplemental Decl. of Arne

Viste (“Viste Supp. Decl.”), filed May 28, 2010, ¶ 5.) Thus,

Hong Kong is available for adjudication of this dispute. 

Further, defendant presents evidence that the potential

relief accorded in the Hong Kong Court is not “clearly

unsatisfactory.” Specifically, Hong Kong Basic Law, through The

Merchant Shipping Ordinance (Cap 434), has incorporated The

Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976

(“the 1976 Convention”). Basic Law (Cap. 434), s12. The 1976

Convention, while limiting liability for shipowners for damage

caused by or occurring on or in direct connection to their ship,

allows for plaintiffs to recover when “it is proved that the

[plaintiff’s] loss resulted from [the ship owner’s] personal act

Case 2:09-cv-03605-FCD-DAD Document 50 Filed 08/04/10 Page 7 of 18
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

8

or omission, committed with the intent to cause such loss, or

recklessly and with knowledge that such loss would probably

result.” (Lamplough Decl. ¶ 4.3.2 (citing Merchant Shipping

(Limitation of Shipowners Liability) Ordinance (Cap 434), s4,

Sch2).) Pursuant to the 1976 Convention, once plaintiffs have

filed and proved their claims, the Hong Kong court will

distribute among them the amount of their proved claims, drawing

from the approximately $12.5 million Limitation Decree filed in

that court by defendants. (Id. at 4.3.6 (citing Merchant

Shipping (Limitation of Shipowners Liability) Ordinance (Cap

434), s12, Sch 2).) Furthermore, with respect to their personal

injury claims, plaintiffs will be required to prove largely the

same elements and meet the same burden of proof in Hong Kong

Admiralty court as they would in an American court. See Joseph

Constantine Steamship Line Ltd v. Imperial Smelting Corporation

Ltd., (1942) AC 154 per Lord Maugham (establishing as the burden

of proof in Hong Kong personal injury claims: “he who asserts

must prove, not he who denies”). Accordingly, defendant has

presented sufficient evidence that the Hong Kong Admiralty Court

provides an adequate remedy.

Plaintiffs assert that defendant’s evidence is biased and

thus, lacks credibility. Specifically, plaintiffs contend that

George D. Lamplough (“Lamplough”) is not a “disinterested expert”

because he represents Champion Shipping in the limitation

proceeding. However, the court’s review of the bases for

Lamplough’s conclusions as well as a review of the underlying law

support consideration of this evidence. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1

(“In determining foreign law, the court may consider any relevant

Case 2:09-cv-03605-FCD-DAD Document 50 Filed 08/04/10 Page 8 of 18
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

9

material or source, including testimony, whether or not submitted

by a party or admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.”). 

Moreover, defendant’s contentions are also supported by the

declaration of Clifford Lonsdale Smith (“Smith”), a barrister

practicing in Hong Kong, enlisted to provide his “independent

opinion” regarding Hong Kong law and procedure. (Supplemental

Decl. of Clifford Lonsdale Smith (“Smith Decl.”), filed May 28,

2010, ¶¶ 3-4.) Smith has had no personal connection with the

admiralty proceeding or this case. (Id. ¶ 4.) However, he

declares that he is “in total agreement with the content of, and

the views expressed in” the relevant portions of Lamplough’s

declaration. (Id. ¶ 6.) Finally, plaintiffs have proffered no

evidence or argument to rebut defendant’s demonstration that Hong

Kong would offer an adequate forum for relief. 

Accordingly, the court concludes that defendant has met its

burden in demonstrating that there is an adequate alternative

forum. 

II. The Balance Of Convenience

Given the existence of an adequate alternative forum, the

court must balance private and public interest factors to

determine whether to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens. 

Lockman, 930 F.2d at 769. A court “should consider [these

factors] together in arriving at a balanced conclusion.” Lueck,

236 F.3d at 1145.

/////

/////

/////

///// 

Case 2:09-cv-03605-FCD-DAD Document 50 Filed 08/04/10 Page 9 of 18
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

10

A. Private Interest Factors

1. The residence of the parties and the witnesses,

the forum’s convenience to the litigants, and

access to evidence

In assessing whether the weight to be accorded the residence

of the parties and witnesses, the court must look at “the

materiality and importance of the anticipated [evidence and]

witnesses’ testimony and then determine their accessibility and

convenience to the forum.” Gates Learjet Corp. v. Jensen, 743

F.2d 1325, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1984). While a citizen does not

have an absolute right to sue in a United States court, the

Supreme Court has observed “that a plaintiff’s choice of forum is

entitled to greater deference when the plaintiff has chosen the

home forum.” Id. (citing Mizokami Brothers of Arizona, Inc. v.

Baychem Corp., 556 F.2d 975, 977 (9th Cir. 1977) (per curiam),

cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1035, 54 L. Ed. 2d 783, 98 S. Ct. 770

(1978); Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. at 255). Courts

“afford greater deference to a plaintiff’s choice of home forum

because it is reasonable and convenient”; “however, the deference

due is ‘far from absolute.’” Loya, 583 F.3d at 665 (quoting

Lockman Found. v. Evangelical Alliance Mission, 930 F.2d 764, 767

(9th Cir. 1991)). Indeed, “[t]he presence of American plaintiffs

. . . is not in and of itself sufficient to bar a district court

from dismissing a case on the ground of forum non conveniens.” 

Cheng v. Boeing Co., 708 F.2d 1406, 1411 (9th Cir. 1983). 

While giving weight to the domicile of the California

plaintiffs and the United States citizenship of all plaintiffs,

the court nevertheless concludes that the residence of the

parties and witnesses weighs in favor of dismissal. Two of the

Case 2:09-cv-03605-FCD-DAD Document 50 Filed 08/04/10 Page 10 of 18
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

11

plaintiffs in this case reside in California. The remaining four

plaintiffs reside in Hawaii. Champion Shipping identifies 37

potential “material witnesses,” 30 of whom are residents of an

Asian country. (Def.’s Reply Mem. (“Reply”), filed May 8, 2010,

at 9.) These witnesses include the owner, master, and first mate

of the Taiping, who are residents of Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the

People’s Republic of China, respectively. (Id.) These witnesses

are likely to have relevant information regarding the “design,

construction, equipment, and seaworthiness of the Taiping.” (MTD

at 12.) 

The material witnesses residing in Asian countries greatly

outnumber those in the United States. Even assuming the truth of

plaintiffs’ contention that few of these potential witnesses are

residents of Hong Kong, these witnesses are concentrated in areas

closer to Hong Kong than Sacramento, California. Moreover, the

testimony of these witnesses is likely to be material to the

resolution of this matter. The owner, master, and first mate of

the Taiping have already submitted to the exclusive jurisdiction

of the Hong Kong court. The Indian crew members who were aboard

the Champion Express at the time of the accident live in India. 

(Decl. of Arne Viste (“Viste Decl.”), filed Apr. 12, 2010, ¶ 7.) 

The accident was investigated by Taiwanese officials, and

plaintiffs were treated by Taiwanese physicians after the

collision. (Lampough Decl. ¶ 3.4.) Finally, a joint survey of

the Champion Express was conducted in Shanghai. (Id. ¶ 3.6.) As

such, relevant witnesses that would have information relating to

the accident itself, treatment of plaintiffs, and nearcontemporaneous and subsequent investigations of the Champion

Case 2:09-cv-03605-FCD-DAD Document 50 Filed 08/04/10 Page 11 of 18
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

12

Express are located in Southeast Asia. See Loya, 583 F.3d at

665-66 (holding that dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds

was warranted where the conduct giving rise to litigation was

“arranged, documents, outfitted, undertaken, and investigated” in

Mexico).

Moreover, most of the relevant physical evidence, including

investigative documents and Taiwan Coast Guard reports, is in

Asia. Further, relevant documentary evidence about the design,

construction, equipment, and seaworthiness of the Taiping will be

located in either Hong Kong, where it was registered, or the

People’s Republic of China, where it was built. (Lampough Decl.

¶ 3.3.) Taiwan also maintains a vessel tracking system that

monitors the movement of vessels along their coastline based on

information received from AIS transponders on vessels. (Id. ¶

3.4.) Neither plaintiffs nor defendant assert that they have

control over this evidence such that it could be brought to court 

no matter the forum. See Lueck, 236 F.3d at 1146 (holding that

the foreign location of documentary evidence weighed in favor of

dismissal where it was not in plaintiff’s control or under the

control of a foreign government); (see also Lampaugh Decl. ¶

4.7.7. (setting forth the procedures for the High Court to issue

requests to all foreign countries and other jurisdictions within

the People’s Republic of China)). As such, the location of such

evidence weighs in favor of dismissal.

Plaintiffs argue that they are individuals of modest means

and thus, the balance of inconveniences weighs in favor of this

court retaining jurisdiction. However, plaintiffs’ objection to

litigation in a foreign forum is substantially diminished by

Case 2:09-cv-03605-FCD-DAD Document 50 Filed 08/04/10 Page 12 of 18
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

13

their prior willingness to embark on a trans-Pacific voyage

aboard the Taiping, a Hong Kong flagged vessel, which was

scheduled to end its journey in Honk Kong. (Pls.’ Opp.’n, filed

May 19, 2010, at 2.) Further, defendant presents evidence that

an action in the Hong Kong Admiralty Court will require little

presence by plaintiffs in Hong Kong. Specifically, plaintiffs

participate in proceeding through their solicitors and initially

give evidence by written statement. Moreover, they are not

required to give depositions at an interlocutory stage. (Smith

Decl. ¶¶ 23-25.) Finally, defendant has agreed to assist in

defraying reasonable transportation and lodging costs if

plaintiffs are required to appear. (Suppl Decl. of John M.

Toriello (“Toriello Supp. Decl.”), filed May 28, 2010, ¶ 4.) 

Accordingly, as a majority of potentially relevant witnesses

reside in Asian countries, physical and documentary evidence is

located in Southeast Asia and Hong Kong, and under the

circumstances of this case, this forum is not of particular

convenience to many of the litigants, including plaintiffs, these

factors weighs in favor of dismissal. 

2. Whether unwilling witnesses can be compelled to

testify and the cost of bringing witnesses to

trial

Dismissal on the grounds of forum non conveniens may be

appropriate when the court finds “critical witnesses” to the

litigation are beyond its jurisdictional reach. In re Air Crash

over the Taiwan Strait on May 25, 2002, 331 F. Supp. 2d 1176,

1200 (C.D. Cal. 2004). A defendant must delineate how witnesses

not subject to compulsory process are critical to the actions,

though it is not required “to identify each potentially critical

Case 2:09-cv-03605-FCD-DAD Document 50 Filed 08/04/10 Page 13 of 18
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

5 Defendant also contends that Tmax Strategy & Marketing

Ltd., the corporate owner of the Taiping, is a necessary party to

this action and is a Hong Kong corporation not subject to the

jurisdiction of this court. Even if Tmax Strategy & Marketing

Ltd. is merely a joint tortfeasor, as suggested by plaintiffs,

this fact still weighs in favor of dismissal.

14

witness, nor to submit affidavits that provide significant

evidentiary detail.” Id. (citing Piper, 454 U.S. at 258.) 

Further, where all witnesses to liability are located in a

foreign forum and where a court would be aided by familiarity

with the local landscape and easy access to the site of an

accident, it may be “unfair” to make foreign defendants proceed

to trial in a United States forum. Piper, 454 U.S. at 1199. 

In this case, defendant has identified a number of critical

witnesses who cannot be compelled to provide testimony in this

forum, including the owners of the Taiping, crew members and

passengers from the Taiping, persons involved in the design and

construction of the Taiping, crew members of the Champion

Express, and the surveyors retained by the owners of both vessels

to conduct the post incident surveys.5 Moreover, as set forth

above, the majority of witnesses to the accident, rescue, and

subsequent investigation are located in Hong Kong or Southeast

Asia. As such, the cost of bringing witnesses to trial would be

substantially less if the claims were litigated in Hong Kong.

Accordingly, these private factors also weigh in favor of

dismissal on the basis of forum non conveniens. 

3. Other practical problems that make trial of a case

easy, expeditious, and inexpensive

Finally, the court notes that defendant has made a

compelling case that Hong Kong is the only forum where all claims

Case 2:09-cv-03605-FCD-DAD Document 50 Filed 08/04/10 Page 14 of 18
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

15

may be resolved in a single proceeding. Collision Jurisdiction

Agreements have been executed with the owners of the Taiping, the

Master Liu Ning Sheng, the First Mate Yuquan Tang, and additional

passenger Chao Hisu-Ying. (Lampaugh Decl. ¶ 3.20.) The

Limitation Proceeding has already been initiated in Hong Kong,

and defendant has already stipulated to an extension of time for

plaintiffs to file claims in this action. (Id. ¶ 3.18.) 

Further, defendant represents that if plaintiffs were to sue

Champion Tankers AS in Hong Kong, it would be open to accept

service or proceedings and submit to jurisdiction. (Smith Decl.

¶ 26.) 

Plaintiffs argue “no forum exists in which all the claims

that arose from our collision can be resolved in a single action”

because they refuse to submit to the jurisdiction of the Hong

Kong Admiralty Court. (Opp.’n at 15.) However, this assertion

inappropriately equates plaintiffs’ unwillingness to try their

case in Hong Kong to the inability of that forum to host the

entirety of this litigation with all parties present. 

Plaintiffs’ can resolve their claims in a single action in Hong

Kong; they simply refuse to submit to jurisdiction.

Because Hong Kong offers a forum in which all claims

involving all parties could be tried in one action, the court

concludes that this factor also weighs in favor of dismissal.

B. Public Interest Factors

Similar to the private interest factors, the court considers

any or all of the public interest factors that are relevant to

the dispute and gives appropriate weight to each when arriving at

a balanced conclusion. Id. at 1145-46 (citing Piper Aircraft,

Case 2:09-cv-03605-FCD-DAD Document 50 Filed 08/04/10 Page 15 of 18
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

16

454 U.S. at 255). Of the public interest factors listed above,

defendant emphasizes California’s minimal connection to the

events giving rise to this action, the administrative

difficulties and jury imposition that this case represents, and

the complex choice of law question facing this court should

jurisdiction over this action be retained. Defendant contends

that Hong Kong’s interest in this litigation is stronger than

that of California, and that the cost to a California court in

hearing this matter will be far greater than the cost to the Hong

Kong Admiralty Court.

Given the strained judicial and administrative resources in

the Eastern District, California’s minimal connection to this

litigation, and the complex choice of law issues represented by

this case, the court finds the public interest factors weigh in

favor of dismissal. See Backcountry Against Dumps v. Abbott, No.

CIV S-10-394, 2010 WL 2349194 (E.D. Cal. June 8, 2010) (noting

that the Eastern District of California has only seven active

judges who maintain a caseload of nearly 1100 cases per judge). 

The jury in this case will be required to hear testimony from

witnesses regarding an alleged collision that took place between

two differently flagged vessels in international waters off the

coast of Tawian. Despite the fact that two of the parties to

this litigation are residents of this state, plaintiffs have

failed to set forth any compelling argument or legal support that

this community has a generalized interest in a maritime dispute

involving multinational parties in which two California residents

voluntarily undertook to join the crew of a Hong Kong vessel

undertaking a trans-Pacific voyage. In addition, the ultimate

Case 2:09-cv-03605-FCD-DAD Document 50 Filed 08/04/10 Page 16 of 18
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

17

questions to be resolved in this action turn on events that

occurred in international waters off the coast of Hong Kong. 

While California has an interest in providing a forum to its

residents, that interest is weakened with respect to its

residents who purposefully and willingly undertake to avail

themselves to the jurisdiction and judicial processes of foreign

countries. 

Moreover, this action is likely to represent a complex

choice of laws analysis that appears to rely heavily on the

outcome of factual determinations regarding whether there was a

collision or merely a close passage. (See Reply at 2-4.) Given

California’s minimal, if not negligible, interest in providing a

forum for this action, this complex analysis is not a task that

the court feels compelled to undertake given the circumstances of

this case. See MAN Ferrostaal, Inc. v. M/V Vertigo, 447 F. Supp.

2d 316, 323 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (identifying the different approaches

courts take to determine what law applies in vessel collission

cases). As explained by the Supreme Court in Piper:

The doctrine of forum non conveniens . . . is

designed in part to help courts avoid conducting

complex exercises in comparative law . . . [T]he

public interest factors point towards dismissal

where the court would be required to “untangle

problems in conflict of law, and in law foreign to

itself. 

 454 U.S. at 251 (quoting Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. at

509). Plaintiffs assert that because this litigation involves a

third party claim against defendants for a collision that

occurred in international waters, general maritime law should

apply. (Opp.’n at 17 (citing Alkmeon Naviera, S.A. v. M/V Marina

L, 633 F.2d 789, 793 (9th Cir. 1980).) Defendant asserts that

Case 2:09-cv-03605-FCD-DAD Document 50 Filed 08/04/10 Page 17 of 18
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

18

whether there was a collision or only a close passage is a

contested fact that substantially affects the choice of law. 

Without reaching the merits of this argument, it is the court’s

opinion that even if general maritime law were to govern this

action, thereby rendering the choice of law question neutral, the

weight of public interest factors still would overwhelmingly in

favor of dismissal. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that Hong

Kong is an adequate alternative forum and that the balance of

private and public factors weigh heavily in favor of dismissal on

the basis of forum non conveniens. Therefore, defendant’s motion

to dismiss for an alternative forum is GRANTED. The clerk of the

court is directed to close this file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 4, 2010

 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-03605-FCD-DAD Document 50 Filed 08/04/10 Page 18 of 18