Source: https://casetext.com/case/spencer-v-alcoa-steamship-company
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 20:14:24+00:00

Document:
Civ. A. No. 62 C 691.
Fink, Frank Gerringer, New York City, Jacquin Frank and Herman B. Gerringer, New York City, of counsel, for plaintiff.
Haight, Gardner, Poor Havens, New York City, J. Ward O'Neill and Francis X. Byrn, New York City, of counsel, for defendant.
The defendant moves this Court for an order pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the action for improper jurisdiction and forum non conveniens.
Plaintiff, a resident of Jamaica, West Indies, instituted this action against the defendant, a New York corporation, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in Kingston, Jamaica, on June 28, 1960, aboard the S.S. ALCOA CAVALIER, a vessel owned and operated by the defendant.
Plaintiff sustained his injuries during a lunch hour. He had brought a box of lunch to his father who was working aboard the vessel. At the request of the stevedore foreman he helped to move a pontoon. During the moving operations he was struck by the pontoon through the alleged faulty handling of the vessel's equipment and injured as a result of which his left leg had to be amputated.
The defendant contends, and this has been conceded by the plaintiff, that all of the witnesses in this action are residents of Jamaica. The defendant also contends that the plaintiff's hospitalization and medical treatment were afforded and obtained only in Jamaica; that plaintiff's vessel has not been in New York for over ten years and that the plaintiff's legal status and the status of the stevedore gang will have to be resolved according to Jamaica law. The defendant attacks the right of the plaintiff to stay in this Court, first, on the doctrine of forum non conveniens and, second, that this Court should utilize its discretion and decline jurisdiction.
Plaintiff's brief sets up the claim that because the defendant's time to answer was extended but not approved, pursuant to Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this bars the defendant's motion (citing Orange Theatre Corp. v. Rayherstz Amusement Corp., 130 F.2d 185 (C.A.3d). This rule and the case cited are applicable only to venue and not jurisdiction or forum non conveniens.
Respecting the principle of forum non conveniens, such a motion is not required to be made before answer. See Nowotny v. Turner, 203 F. Supp. 802 (M.D.N.C.).
"Indeed, the doctrine of forum non conveniens can never apply if there is absence of jurisdiction or mistake of venue.
"Obviously, the proposition that a court having jurisdiction must exercise it, is not universally true; else the admiralty court could never decline jurisdiction on the ground that the litigation is between foreigners. Nor is it true of courts administering other systems of our law. Courts of equity and of law also occasionally decline, in the interest of justice, to exercise jurisdiction, where the suit is between aliens or non-residents or where for kindred reasons the litigation can more appropriately be conducted in a foreign tribunal." Canada Malting Co., Ltd., v. Paterson Steamships, Ltd., 285 U.S. 413, 422-423, 52 S.Ct. 413, 76 L.Ed. 837.
"The principle of forum non conveniens is simply that a court may resist imposition upon its jurisdiction even when jurisdiction is authorized by the letter of a general venue statute. * * *"
"But it should be remembered that parties do not enter into civil relations in foreign jurisdictions in reliance upon our courts. They could not complain if our courts refused to meddle with their affairs, and remitted them to the place that established and would enforce their rights."
"The doctrine leaves much to the discretion of the court to which plaintiff resorts". 330 U.S. at page 508, 67 S.Ct. at page 843, 91 L.Ed. 1055.
"There is an appropriateness, too, in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the state law that must govern the case, rather than having a court in some other forum untangle problems in conflict of laws, and in law foreign to itself." 330 U.S. at page 509, 67 S.Ct. at page 843, 91 L.Ed. 1055.
De Sairigne v. Gould was affirmed in open Court by the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (177 F.2d 515).
"The doctrine of forum non conveniens is now firmly established in federal law. Koster v. Lumbermen's Mut. Casualty Co., 1947, 330 U.S. 518, 67 S.Ct. 828, 91 L.Ed. 1067; Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert, 1947, 330 U.S. 501, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) has, in effect, codified and replaced this doctrine whenever the more convenient tribunal is a United States district court where the action `"might have been brought."' Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, 1955, 349 U.S. 29, 75 S.Ct. 544, 547, 99 L.Ed. 789. But the federal courts retain the inherent power to refuse jurisdiction of cases not within § 1404(a) — cases which should have been brought in a foreign jurisdiction, rather than in the United States. DeSairigne v. Gould, 2 Cir., 1949, 177 F.2d 515, affirming D.C., 83 F. Supp. 270, certiorari denied, 339 U.S. 912, 70 S.Ct. 571, 94 L.Ed. 1338; Latimer v. S/A Industries Reunidas F. Matarazzo, D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1950, 91 F. Supp. 469. * * *"
The doctrine of forum non conveniens as decided in Vanity Fair, supra, was adopted in Prack v. Weissinger, 276 F.2d 446 (C.A.4th). In that case the plaintiff, a citizen, resident and subject of West Germany, was injured in West Germany while riding as a passenger in an automobile owned by the defendant, a captain in the United States Army and a resident of the State of Oregon. The defendant remained in West Germany for over a year after the accident and was amenable to service of process there. The plaintiff had retained a German attorney but instituted no action against the defendant until after he had been transferred to Fort Lee, Virginia, and then sued him in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for damages sustained as a result of the accident. The action was dismissed for forum non conveniens.
"But unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed."
"Turning to the question whether this is one of those rather rare cases where the doctrine should be applied, we look first to the interests of the litigants.
"The plaintiff himself is not a resident of New York, nor did any event connected with the case take place there, nor does any witness, with the possible exception of experts, live there. No one connected with that side of the case save counsel for the plaintiff resides there, * * *. His affidavits and argument are devoted to controverting claims as to defendant's inconvenience rather than to showing that the present forum serves any convenience of his own, with one exception."
"We are convinced that the District Court did not exceed its powers or the bounds of its discretion in dismissing plaintiff's complaint and remitting him to the courts of his own community. * * *"
The steamship company in this jurisdiction would have no way of litigating its claim against the stevedore whose foreman requested the plaintiff's help in moving the pontoon. Whether the steamship company is responsible in damages to the plaintiff, or the stevedore, might become a very important question which can only be litigated in Jamaica.
For the above reasons this Court declines jurisdiction and an order may be entered within five days on two days' notice.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1404
 v. 
 § 1404
 v. 
 v. 
 v.