Opinion ID: 548383
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Local Interest in Having Localized Controversies Resolved at Home

Text: 85 This case does not involve the wrongdoing of a defendant of the United States nor the injuries of a United States citizen. It does, however, involve an injured Filippino and a Norwegian defendant that maintains an office in the Philippines. Clearly, this dispute is of more interest to the Philippines than the United States. While the injury did occur in New Orleans, the injury was limited to the actions aboard the vessel. The parties do not allege that the injury involved any failure to observe the regulations or laws of New Orleans or of the United States. Under these facts, the United States has virtually no interest in deciding this dispute. 86 3. The Interest in Having the Trial of a Diversity Case in a Forum that is Familiar with the Law That Must Govern the Action 87 Although Air Crash rejected the Fifth Circuit's former forum non conveniens approach which fixed choice of law as the predominant, if not exclusive factor, choice of law is still an important consideration. Certainly it is relevant in determining the public interests at stake. Gonzalez v. Naviera Neptuno A.A., 832 F.2d 876, 879 (5th Cir.1987). Since no one set of factors is conclusive, [the court should] also address the factors of public interest. Id. at 879. A district court, therefore, should make a choice of law determination in considering the public interest factors. 88 The Plaintiff argues that this Court should not make a choice of law determination, reasoning that Air Crash dictates making a choice of law determination only when the forum non conveniens dismissal is contested. In this action, the Plaintiff has stipulated to the forum non conveniens dismissal. Plaintiff's Supplemental Memorandum, p. 3-4. 89 This Court declines to read Air Crash so narrowly. Air Crash makes it clear that a district court should make a choice of law determination in deciding a forum non conveniens issue. Air Crash, 821 F.2d at 1166; see also Kempe v. Ocean Drilling & Exploration Co., 683 F.Supp. 1064, 1070 (E.D.La.1988), aff'd, Kempe v. Ocean Drilling & Exploration Co., 876 F.2d 1138, 1146 (5th Cir.1989). 90 In making a choice of law determination in the maritime setting, a district court applies the Lauritzen-Rhoditis test. 1 This test mandates that a district court should consider the following: 91
92 The place of the wrongful act is the United States. The M/S BARWA was docked at the Port of New Orleans when the accident occurred. However, because this is an alleged shipboard tort, the significance of the application of this specific factor is limited. 93 See Diaz v. Humboldt, 722 F.2d 1216 (5th Cir.1984). 94
95 The M/S BARWA is a Liberian flag vessel. 96
97 The Plaintiff in this case is domiciled in the Philippines. 98
99 The shipowner is an entity incorporated and existing under the laws of Liberia and wholly owned by Norwegians. The vessel is commercially operated by A/S Bulkhandling of Norway and is managed by the Defendant Klaveness in Norway. At the time of the injury, the M/S BARWA was being managed by Klaveness' subagent, Klaveness Maritime Agency, Inc., which maintains an office in the Philippines. 100
101 The place of the contract is the Philippines. The Plaintiff signed the contract in the Philippines, which was developed by the Defendant Klaveness in cooperation with the Philippine and Norwegian seamen's unions. The contract's express terms provide that the contract shall be governed by the laws of the Philippines. 102
103 The contract expressly states that disputes are to be governed by the laws of the Philippines, which is the domicile of the Plaintiff. Any disputes under this contract could therefore be resolved under the jurisdiction of that country. 104
105 This specific test has been held to be inapplicable where the Defendant, as in the case presented herein, is involuntarily made subject to American jurisdiction. Diaz v. Humboldt, 722 F.2d at 1218. 106
107 A Liberian corporation, Barwa, Inc., owns the M/S BARWA. This corporation is wholly owned by Norwegians. The vessel itself, operates worldwide. 108 The above analysis indicates that there are substantial contacts with the Philippines which favor an application of the law of the Philippines rather than the law of the United States. The fact that foreign law is applicable gives further weight to the conclusion that the Philippines is the most convenient forum. See Gonzales, 832 F.2d at 881. 109 4. The Avoidance of Unnecessary Problems and Conflicts of Law 110 Because the court has determined that Philippine law applies to this action, problems in conflicts of law can be avoided if this case is tried in the Philippines. 111 5. The Unfairness of Burdening Citizens in an Unrelated Forum with Jury Duty 112 The facts in this case demonstrate that beside the occurrence of the tort on a vessel temporarily located in New Orleans, the United States has no interest or contact with this dispute. It would, therefore, be unfair to require United States citizens to sit as jurors in a case where the United States has so little interest.