UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK .............................................................. X 

ZIM INTEGRATED SHIPPING SERVICES, LTD.,: 

Plaintiff, 

BELCO RESOURCES, INC., SINOCHEM 

JIANGSU CORPORATION (FORMERLY 

KNOWN AS SINOCHEM JIANGSU IMPORT & : 

EXPORT CORPORATION), NANJING HUABIlV : 

FOREIGN TRADE & ECONOMICS CO., LTD., : 

DRAGONTRANS SHIPPING LTD. d/b/a 

HUABANG INTERNATIONAL, INC., 

SINOTRANS NINGBO INTERNATIONAL 

FORWARDING AGENCY CO., LTD., JOHN 

DOE 1-10, 

07 Civ. 5861 (RMB) 

DECISION & ORDER 

Defendants. 

I. Background 

On or about June 20, 2007, Zim Integrated Shipping Services, Ltd. ("Zim" or "Plaintiff') 

filed a complaint ("Complaint") against Belco Resources, Inc. ("Belco"), Sinochem Jiangsu 

Corporation ("Sinochem"), Nanjing Huabin Foreign Trade & Economics Co., Ltd. ("Huabin"), 

Dragontrans Shipping, Ltd. ("Dragontrans"), and Sinotrans Ningbo International Forwarding 

Agency Co., Ltd. ("Sinotrans"), alleging that Defendants "failed to indicate . . . the hazardous or 

dangerous nature of the Calcium Hypochlorite ["CIIC"] packcd . . . in container number 

ZIMU1037636," which caused "a fire and explosions" aboard a vessel operated by Plaintiff on a 

trade route between China and ~elize.' (Compl. 77 10, 14, 38.) On or about June 21, 2007, the 

Court issued an order, pursuant to Rule B of the Supplemental Rules of Certain Admiralty and 

1 On or about November 6,2007, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint ("Amended 

Complaint"). On or about March 7, 2008, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Defendant Dragontrans 

from the action. (See Not. of Voluntary Dismissal, datcd Mar. 7,2008, at 1 .) 

1 

Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 53 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 1 of 14
Maritime Claims of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule B"), requiring attachment of "all 

tangible and intangible property belonging to . . . Defendants . . . in an amount up to and 

including $3,096,694." (Order, dated June 21, 2007, at 2.) 

On or about November 28,2007, Defendants Sinochem and Huabin submitted a motion 

to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Fed. R. Civ. 

P.") 12(b)(6), arguing, among other things, that (1) "the Amended Complaint should be 

dismissed pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens"; (2) "Plaintiff fails to state a 

claim . . . under the Carriage of Goods at Sea Act ("COGSA")"; (3) "Chinese law applies to 

Plaintiffs [non-COGSA] claims"; (4) "Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action for [fraud and] 

negligent misrepresentation"; and (5) "Plaintiff fails to state claims for strict product liability, 

strict liability for failure to warn, or negligent failure to warn." (Defs. Mem. of Law, dated Nov. 

28, 2007 ("Defs. Mem."), at 12-17.1~ 

On or about January 11, 2008, Plaintiff opposed Sincohem and Huabin's motion to 

dismiss ("Opposition") arguing, among other things, that (1) Plaintiff "is entitled to its choice of 

forum"; (2) Plaintiffs "claim[s] . . . under COGSA do[] not fail" and, in any case, "the 

provision[s] of the Hague-Visby Rules . . . [are] identical" to those of COGSA; (3) the "choiceof-law for all Plaintiff s [non-COGSA] causes of actions is the United States" law; (4) "Plaintiff 

has stated a claim for [fraud and] negligent misrepresentation" because "all the requirements 

have been adequately pled"; and (5) "Plaintiff has properly stated claims for strict product 

2 Defendant Belco did not join Sinochem and Huabin in the motion to dismiss but 

"submit[ted] its separate memorandum of law in support of [its] motion to vacate the 

attachment" pursuant to Rule (E)(4)(9 of the Supplemental Rules of Certain Admiralty and 

Maritime Claims of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule Em), arguing, among other 

things, that "the traditional policy behind the Rule B attachment is not present here and the 

attachment is not warranted" because "Belco can establish that it would be subject to in 

personam jurisdiction" by Plaintiff in North Carolina. (Defs. Mem. at 1,26, 28.) 

Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 53 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 2 of 14
liability, strict liability for failure to warn, [and] negligent failure to warn" because "the law of 

the forum also dictates that U.S. law appl[ies]." (Opp. at 10-17.) Plaintiff also opposed Belco's 

motion to vacate, arguing that "Belco fail[s] to establish that Plaintiff could obtain in personam 

jurisdiction" over it. (Opp. at 26.) 

On or about February 22 2008, all Defendants filed a joint reply brief ("Reply"). On or 

about March 7, 2008, Plaintiff filed a sur-reply ("Sur-Reply"). The parties waived oral 

argument. 

For the reasons stated below, Sincohem and Huabin's motion to dismiss is granted 

in part and denied in part and Belco's motion to vacate the attachment is denied. 

11. Legal Standard 

When considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the court "must accept 

the factual allegations of the complaint as true and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor 

of the plaintiff" Bernheim v. Litt, 79 F.3d 3 18, 321 (2d Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). "The 

issue is not whether a plaintiff is likely to prevail ultimately, but whether the claimant is entitled 

to offer evidence to support the claims. Indeed it may appear on the face of the pleading that a 

recovery is very remote and unlikely but that is not the test." Gant v. Wallin.gford Bd. of Educ., 

69 F.3d 669, 673 (2d Cir. 1995) (citation and internal quotation omitted). "Dismissal for failure 

to state a claim is proper where it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of 

facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Smith v. Local 8 19 I.B.T. 

Pension Plan, 291 F.3d 236, 240 (2d Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation omitted). 

Rule B is "a relatively broad maritime attachment rule, under which the attachment is 

quite easily obtained," and a maritime attachment "may be vacated only in certain limited 

Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 53 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 3 of 14
circumstances." Aqua Stoli Shipping Ltd. v. Gardner Smith Pty. Ltd., 460 F.3d 434, 443-45 (2d 

Cir. 2006). 

111. Analysis 

(I) Choice of Forum 

Defendants Sincohem and Huabin argue, among other things, that Plaintiffs "choice of 

this district [the Southern District of New York] should be afforded little deference" because 

"Plaintiff is an Israeli corporation"; "Chinese courts offer sufficient remedies for the alleged torts 

and contractual breaches"; "all of the alleged wrongs purportedly [took] place in China and [not] 

in New York"; "defendants are Chinese"; "relevant witnesses and other evidence" are located in 

China; and "China has a significant national interest in resolving Plaintiffs claims." (Defs. 

Mem. at 18-23 .) 

Plaintiff counters, among other things, that "Plaintiffs base of operations is in the United 

States"; one of the principal Defendants, Belco, "is domiciled in the United States"; the 

damaged vessel "was under the operational control of Zim's U.S. agent," Zim-American 

Integrated Shipping Services, Inc., located in Norfolk, Virginia; "Zim-American also arranged 

for. . . inspect[ion] [of] the vessel and damaged cargo"; "the only sample of the cargo which 

exploded and which is hazardous to move is located in the U.S."; "it is much easier and 

economical [for the Panamanian witnesses, among others] to travel to New York than it is to 

travel to China"; "the vast majority of the documents involved in this case are in English"; and, 

apart from Sinochem and Huabin, none of the other parties appearing in the action (or in the 

several related actions against Zim and Belco pending since July 2007 in the Southern District of 

New York) have joined in the forum non conveniens motion. (Opp. at 18 -23.) 

Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 53 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 4 of 14
"[D]efendant[s] must . . . show that the balance of convenience sufficiently favors trial in 

[China] to overcome the presumption in favor of [Pllaintiff s choice" of a New York forum. See 

Maganla1 & Co. v. M.G. Chemical Co., Inc., 942 F.2d 164, 168 (2d Cir. 1991). Sinochem and 

Huabin fail not only to overcome the presumption, but, in fact, the balance of factors supports 

maintaining the action in this Court. 

Preliminarily, China may not (entirely) be an adequate alternative forum because, 

Plaintiff alleges, "Belco [the Defendant who purchased the cargo that exploded] is located in the 

United States and is not amenable to suit in China." Plaintiff argues that "a choice of forum 

clause in [Plaintiffs] bill of lading with Belco . . . does not give jurisdiction to Chinese courts" 

and "Chinese courts would [thus] not accept jurisdiction over Belco." (Opp. at 19; See Reply 

Declaration of Yulin Qian, dated Mar. 7, 2008,y 10.) See Cortec Corp. v. Erste Bank, 535 F. 

Supp. 2d 403,409 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). 

Assuming, arguendo, that an adequate alternative forum does exist, the public interests 

(e.g., court congestion, settling local disputes locally, unfairness of imposing the burden of jury 

service on citizens in a forum unrelated to the dispute, appropriateness of trying a case in a forum 

that is familiar with the laws to be applied) and the private interests (e.g., ease of access to 

evidence, availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses, cost of 

obtaining willing witnesses, other factors that might shorten trial or make it less expensive) point 

to New York as a forum which will be most convenient and will "best serve the ends of justice." 

Alfadda v. Fenn, 159 F.3d 41, 4546 (2d Cir. 1998) (internal citations and quotations omitted); 

Madanes v. Madanes, 98 1 F. Supp. 241,265 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). 

Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 53 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 5 of 14
Public Factors 

The public factors weigh against dismissal in favor of another forum. First, there are two 

related matters pending in the Southern District of New York that will be litigated here even if 

the Court were to dismiss this a~tion.~ Madanes, 981 F. Supp. at 266-67. Second, Belco is 

"a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of North Carolina" and is 

accused of acting "individually, or in concert," in furtherance of the alleged fraud which is 

central to this case. (Am. Compl. 77 5, 109); see Bravo Co. v. Chum, Ltd., 60 F. Supp. 2d 52, 56 

(E.D.N.Y. 1999). Third, "[blecause both jurisdictions have some interest in this dispute, the 

concern with burdening jurors is not present." Capital Currency Exch., N.V. v. National 

Westminster Bank PLC, 155 F.3d 603, 61 1 (2d Cir. 1998). Fourth, "[wlhile reluctance to 

[potentially] apply foreign law is a valid factor," "standing alone it does not justify dismissal." 

See Boosey & Hawkes Music Publishers, Ltd. v. Walt Disney Co., 145 F.3d 481, 492 (2d Cir. 

1998). 

Private Factors 

Likewise, the private factors support continuing the action in this Court. First, "[wlhile 

there does not appear to be any dispute that many, if not most, of [Sinochem and Huabin's] 

witnesses [are] in [China], conversely, most of [Plaintiffs] witnesses are located in [the United 

States]" (i.e. Zim-American employees, including those who responded to the explosion and 

"arranged for all experts . . . and surveyors" to inspect the vessel and damaged cargo). (Opp. at 

19); see also Bravo, 60 F. Supp. 2d at 57. Second, "any difficulties . . . regarding witnesses 

3 In Caribbean Retail Ventures, Inc. v. Zim Integrated Shipping Services, Ltd. (07 Civ. 

6873), cargo interested parties sued all the parties to this action (among others), including Zim, 

Sinochem, Huabin, and Belco for damages. And, in Zim Integrated Shipping Services, Ltd. v. 

Prodiumport Empresa lmportadora y Comercialzadora (07 Civ. 6500), Zim sued for declaratory 

relief regarding its liability to cargo interested parties aboard the damaged vessel. 

Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 53 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 6 of 14
whose attendance the Court is unable to compel can most likely be resolved by the use of 

deposition testimony or letters rogatory." See DiRienzo v. Philip Services Corp., 294 F.3d 21, 

30 (2d Cir. 2002) (internal citation omitted). And, "[wlherever the trial takes place, witnesses 

will be forced to travel to provide testimony." See Peregrine Myanmar Ltd. v. Segal, 89 F.3d 41, 

46-47 (2d Cir. 1996) (internal citation omitted). Third, because the parties in this matter-and in 

the Prodiumport Empresa and Caribbean Retail matters-are actively engaged in discovery, "[a] 

trial here promises to begin and end sooner than elsewhere." See Boosev & Hawkes, 145 F.3d at 

492. Overall, "it seems . . . likely that [Sinochem and Huabin's] motion seeks [potentially] to 

split the suit into [two] parts in [two] nations, complicate the suit, delay it, and render it more 

expensive." See id. Sinochem and Huabin's arguments against trial in the United States do not 

rise to the level of being "so oppressive and vexatious . . . as to be out of all proportion to 

[Plaintiffs] convenience." See DiRienzo, 294 F.3d at 30. 

(2) Claims under COGSA 

Defendants Sinochem and Huabin argue, among other things, that "COGSA does not 

apply where the cargo was not destined for a U.S. port"; "the Bill of Lading states that the cargo 

was being shipped between two foreign ports: it was loaded at Ningbo, China and destined for 

Belize City, Belize"; "Plaintiff tries to refornl the Complaint in its Opposition by asserting that it 

meant to plead these claims under Israeli law (in a manifest attempt to skirt the fact that the 

Hague-Visby Rules are not self-executing)"; and its "eleventh-hour resort to Israeli law is 

baffling." (Defs. Mem. at 16-17; Reply at 6.) 

Plaintiff argues, among other things, that "[tlhe laws of the State of Israel govern the 

contract of carriage"; "Israel is a signatory to the Hague-Visby Rules"; and "[tlhe language of 

Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 53 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 7 of 14
the applicable sections under COGSA and the Hague-Visby Rules . . . [is] identical." (Opp. at 

14-1 6.) 

"COGSA applies 'to contracts for carriage of goods by sea to or from ports of the United 

States in foreign trade,"' not, as here, to contracts between two foreign ports. Ansell Healthcare, 

Inc. v. Maersk Line, No. 07 Civ. 771 5,2008 WL 1700 19 1, at '3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4,2008). 

Indeed, Plaintiff concedes that "COGSA is not the law applicable to the contract of carriage," but 

also alleges-for the first time in its Opposition-that it has "set forth the legal requirements of 

its cause of action . . . under the Hague-Visby Rules." (Opp. at 14-15.) Plaintiffs argument is 

not persuasive. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff does not "give notice of the intent to raise 

foreign [Israeli] law," nor does it "inform the Court and litigants that [Tsraeli law and the HagueVisby rules are] relevant to the lawsuit." Rationis Enterprises Inc. of Panama v. Hyundai Mipo 

Dockyard Co., Ltd., 426 F.3d 580, 585 (2d Cir. 2005); see also Acciai Speciali Terni USA, Inc. 

v. M/V Berane, 182 F. Supp. 2d 503, 505 (D. Md. 2002). And, because Plaintiff elected not to 

amend the Complaint to plead (breach of warranty and strict liability) claims under the HagueVisby rules or Israeli law, and because a "[c]omplaint cannot be amended by the briefs in 

opposition to a motion to dismiss," Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs claims under 

COGSA is granted.4 See O'Brien v. National Property Analysts Partners, 719 F. Supp. 222,229 

(S.D.N.Y. 1989). 

4 At a conference held on October 18,2007, the Court offered Plaintiff the opportunity to 

amend the Complaint to meet the deficiencies set forth in Defendants' pre-motion letter, dated 

September 19, 2007, prior to motion practice. Plaintiff did not amend. (See Defs.' Ltr. from 

Edward T. Schorr to Hon. Richard M. Berman, dated Sept. 19, 2007, at 1) ("Zim's factual 

allegations do not support its invocation of the Carriage of Goods at Sea Act"). 

Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 53 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 8 of 14
(3) Choice of Law 

Defendants argue that Chinese law should apply to Plaintiffs claims because, among 

other reasons, "China [is] the place of the allegedly wrongful acts"; "four out of the five 

defendants are based in China and the fifth likewise has no connection to New York"; "Zim [I 

misstates the facts when it argues that the non-party cargo interests are overwhelmingly located 

in the U.S."; "only two shippers (or less than 3%) appear to be based in the U.S."; "Zim [is] 

heavily represented in China"; and Zim "directed the export and transit of the goods in question 

from one or more of its twenty-one China offices." (Reply at 4-6.) 

Plaintiff argues that "United States law applies" because, among other reasons, "[elight 

out of nine cargo interests who have made a claim against Plaintiff are domiciled in the United 

States"; "[Defendant] Belco is domiciled in the United States"; "Plaintiffs base of operations is 

in the United States"; and Plaintiffs "regional agent [Zim-American] . . . is domiciled in 

Norfolk, Virginia." (Opp. at 8-10.) 

"[Gleneral federal maritime law, including federal choice-of-law rules," applies to a 

maritime action. Advani Enterprises, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyds, 140 F.3d 157, 162 (2d Cir. 

1998). The Court must consider several factors in conducting a choice of law analysis, including 

"(1) the place of the alleged wrongful act; (2) the law of the ship's flag; (3) the domicile and base 

of operations of the plaintiff; (4) the domicile and base of operations of the defendant; and (5) 

the domicile and base of operations of the shipowner." Carbotrade S.p.A. v. Bureau Veritas, 99 

F.3d 86,91 (2d Cir. 1996). "The weight to be given each factor varies from case to case and the 

list is not an exhaustive one." Id. at 90. 

These choice of law factors favor the application of Chinese law. The first factor favors 

the application of Chinese law because Defendants are alleged to have issued fraudulent shipping 

Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 53 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 9 of 14
documents in China. See id. at 91. The second factor favors neither Chinese nor United States 

law because the damaged vessel sailed under the flag of Israel. Id. at 92. The third factor favors 

the application of Chinese law. See id. That is, Zim maintains offices in China and the conduct 

giving rise to this claim took place in China where Plaintif "had chosen to establish itself and 

thereby become subject to that country's laws." (Reply at 5); id. The fourth factor also points to 

the application of Chinese law, see id. at 91, because most Defendants are based in China, id. at 

93. The fifth factor points to the application of Chinese law because Zim is also the shipowner 

and the conduct giving rise to this claim took place, in part, at least in its offices in China. See 

- id. at 92. 

Finally, "[elven from the sparse record as to the cargo interests7 countries of citizenship, 

this factor steers toward 'much of the globe."' See Rationis, 426 F.3d at 587-88. Ultimately, "it 

is the place of the alleged wrongful act that tips the scale in favor of [Chinese] law" because the 

"act that gave rise to the [potential] liability" occurred in China. See id. ("a New York court is 

fully capable of applying foreign law"); see also Barkanic v. General Admin. of Civil Aviation 

of the People's Republic, 923 F.2d 957 (2d Cir. 1991) (applying Chinese law to wrongful death 

action); Lehman Bros. Commercial Cow. v. Minrnetals Intern. Non-Ferrous Metals, 179 F. 

Supp. 2d 118 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (applying Chinese law to contract dispute); Apple & Eve, LLC v. 

Yantai North Andre Juice Co., Ltd., 499 F. Supp. 2d 245 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (applying Chinese law 

to contract interpretation question). 

(4) Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation 

Rule 44.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[tlhe court, in 

determining foreign law, may consider any relevant material or source, including testimony, 

whether or not submitted by a party or admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence." See 

Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 53 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 10 of 14
Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1; AIM Intern. Trading, L.L.C. v. Valcucine S.p.A., No. 02 Civ. 1363, 2003 

WL 21203503, at "5 (S.D.N.Y. May 22,2003). Defendants Sinochem and Huabin have 

submitted a declaration regarding Chinese law, dated November 27, 2007, from Chen 

Huanzhong ("Chen Decl."), "a partner in the Beijing, China office of the firm Global Law Firm." 

(Chen Decl. 7 1 .) Plaintiffs also submitted a declaration regarding Chinese law, dated January 

11, 2008, from Yulin Qian ("Qian Decl."), "an attorney-at-law at the Rolmax Law Office in 

Shanghai, China." (Qian Decl. 7 1 .) 

Defendants argue, among other things, that "Plaintiff [I fails adequately to plead the 

elements of causation" for fraud and negligent misrepresentation because "Plaintiff does not (and 

cannot) assert that the alleged misrepresentations in the Bill of Lading and Dock Receipt, which 

describe cargo placed aboard the Zim Savannah, had anything to do with the fire." (Defs. Mem. 

at 12.) Plaintiff argues, among other things, that although the Bill of Lading lists the cargo as 

being loaded on the Zim Savannah, "the transfer of the container from [the Zim Savannah] to 

[the Zim Haifa]" is "expressly authorized under section 8 of the terms and conditions of Zim's 

Bill of Lading"; and "Defendant's [sic] container was aboard the Zim Haifa and determined to be 

the center of the explosions and fire." (Opp. at 10.) 

On this record (and at this time) it would appear that under Chinese law, "[tlhe absence in 

a complaint of any allegation of transshipment of. . . cargo from one vessel to another would not 

defeat any issue of causation for claims of negligent misrepresentation [or] fraud . . . if proof of 

transshipment is later established at the time of trial."' (Qian Decl. 7 39); see also Software AG, 

Inc. v. Consist Software Solutions, Inc., No. 08 Civ. 389, 2008 WL 563449, at "15 (S.D.N.Y. 

5 The parties may revisit the issue of causation at trial or upon any application for summary 

judgment following discovery. 

Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 53 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 11 of 14
(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2 1,2008); Base Metal Trading SA v. Russian Aluminum, 253 F. Supp. 2d 68 1, 

700 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) ("the Court may use the declarations to answer questions of law"). 

(5) Strict Product Liability, Strict Liability for Failure to Warn, and Negligent 

Failure to Warn 

Defendants Sinochem and Huabin argue, among other things, that "Plaintiffs claims for 

strict liability for failure to warn and negligent failure to warn [I fail under Chinese law, which 

does not support claims for either cause of action"; and "Plaintiff has not pled [a strict product 

liability] claim." (Defs. Mem. at 15-1 6.) 

Plaintiff argues, among other things, that "[ilf Chinese law were to apply, Plaintiff 

concurs with Sinochem and Huabin that it would. be denied all three causes of action for strict 

product liability, strict liability for failure to warn, and negligent failure to warn." (Opp. at 13.) 

Because Chinese law appears to apply (see 111.4 above) and Plaintiff concedes that, under 

Chinese law, "it would be denied all three causes of action for strict product liability, strict 

liability for failure to warn, and negligent failure to warn," Defendants' motion to dismiss these 

claims is granted. (& Opp. at 13.) 

Defendant Belco's Motion to Vacate the Attachment 

Defendant Belco argues, among other things, that its "office is located in North 

Carolina"; "Zim has offices and affiliates in 120 locations throughout the world, including an 

office in North Carolina where it operates a liner service"; "both Zim and Belco . . . are subject 

to in personam jurisdiction in North Carolina"; and "Plaintiffs attachment should be vacated on 

the grounds that Belco can establish that it would be subject to in personam jurisdiction in 

another jurisdiction convenient to Plaintiff-North ~arolina.~ (Defs. Mem. at 28-29.) 

6 Belco does not appear to argue for a transfer of venue to North Carolina or for dismissal 

based upon forum non conveniens. (Defs. Mem. at 24-29.) 

Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 53 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 12 of 14
Plaintiff argues, among other things, that "Belco's allegations [that both Zim and Belco 

are subject to in personam jurisdiction in North Carolina] are merely conclusory and are not 

supported by any facts"; Zim "has no presence in North Carolina"; its "contacts with the state are 

[not] 'continuous or systematic"'; it "has no offices, no employees, no phone listing, [and] no 

property in North Carolina"; and it "does not advertise in North Carolina." (Opp. at 24-26.) 

"[Vlacatur may be warranted when the defendant can show that it would be subject to in 

personam jurisdiction in another jurisdiction convenient to the plaintiff." Aqua Stoli, 460 F.3d at 

444. "The concept of 'convenience,' however, is a narrowly circumscribed one: [a] district 

court may vacate a maritime attachment only if the defendant would be subject to an in personam 

lawsuit in a jurisdiction adjacent to the one in which the attachment proceedings were brought." 

Id. The federal judicial districts of North Carolina and the Southern District of New York are not 

"adjacent," and, in any event, Belco does not submit any evidence in support of its claim that 

Plaintiff would be "subject to in personam jurisdiction" in North Carolina. See id. The 

attachment of Belco's funds in New York is not vacated because Plaintiff has demonstrated, 

among other things, that "it has a valid prima facie admiralty claim against [Belco]; [Belco] 

cannot be found within the [Southern District of New York]; [Belco's] property [is] found within 

the [Southern District of New York]; and there is no statutory or maritime law bar to the 

attachment." Id. at 445. Belco has not met its burden of "establish[ing] any of the limited 

grounds that could justify vacatur." Id. 

Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 53 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 13 of 14
IV. Conclusion and Order 

For the reasons stated herein, Sinochem and Huabin's motion to dismiss [#26] is granted 

in part and denied in part and Belco's 

Dated: New York, New York 

May 2,2008 

RICHARD M. BERMAN, U.S.D.J. 

Case 1:07-cv-05861-RMB-GWG Document 53 Filed 05/02/2008 Page 14 of 14