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

Heading: application of the air crash factors to the present case

Text: 70 As previously stated, a foreign forum is available when all the parties to the case can be brought within the jurisdiction of that forum. Air Crash, 821 F.2d at 1165. The defendant's submission to the jurisdiction of an alternative forum renders that forum available for purposes of forum non conveniens analysis. Syndicate 420 at Lloyd's London v. Early American Insurance, 796 F.2d 821, 830 (5th Cir.1986) (citing Voba-Chemie A. G. v. M/V GETAFIX, 711 F.2d 1243, 1245 (5th Cir.1983)). By conditioning the dismissal of forum non conveniens upon Klaveness' waiver of jurisdictional defenses, this court can ensure that an available forum exists. See Syndicate 420, 796 F.2d at 830. Klaveness has already certified that it will submit to service of process and jurisdiction in the Philippines. Therefore, the Philippines is an available forum.
71 Dismissing a case on the basis of forum non conveniens may result in an unfavorable change in the law to be applied. Such a change should not be conclusive or even a substantial factor in a court's decision to dismiss for forum non conveniens; unless, however, the change results in the remedy provided by the alternative forum being so clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory such that it is no remedy at all.... Air Crash, 821 F.2d at 1164, n. 27. Moreover, there is a presumption that the substantive law of a foreign forum is adequate. Vaz Borralho v. Keydril Co., 696 F.2d 379, 392 (5th Cir.1983). Because neither party has suggested that Philippine law would deprive Plaintiff of a remedy, the court finds the Philippines to be an adequate forum.
72
73 The evidence demonstrates that four of the five witnesses to Plaintiff's fall reside in the Philippines and one witness resides in Norway. Answers to Interrogatories, p. 1. It would be difficult and expensive to transport these witnesses to the United States. Also, these witnesses would most likely require an interpreter to testify. While the Plaintiff has been treated by doctors in Louisiana, this testimony can be taken and presented through deposition. 74 2. Availability of Compulsory Process for Attendance of Unwilling, and the Costs of Obtaining Attendance of Willing Witnesses 75 The foreign witnesses would not be subject to service of process in the Eastern District of Louisiana. Their presence could, however, be obtained in the Philippines. Moreover, even if these foreign witnesses were willing to come to the United States, transporting them here would add tremendously to the costs of this litigation. 76 3. Probability of View of Premises, If View Would be Appropriate to the Actions 77 The Plaintiff's injury occurred aboard a vessel in New Orleans. The vessel's location at the Port of New Orleans at the time of the accident is entirely fortuitous. The accident did not involve the location of the vessel in New Orleans nor any special circumstances in the Port of New Orleans. A view of the area in New Orleans where the Plaintiff was injured, therefore, is not necessary or appropriate in this action. 78 4. The Enforceability of a Judgment if One is Obtained 79 Klaveness has no offices in the United States, and it includes no person, firm or corporation maintaining an office or residing either in the United States or in the State of Louisiana. Affidavit of Kaare E. Borch, p. 2. Because there are no assets in the United States, it would be difficult to enforce a judgment in the United States against Klaveness. Klaveness, however, does maintain an office in the Philippines, which would enable the Plaintiff to enforce a judgment more easily against Klaveness in the Philippines than in the United States. 80 5. All other Practical Problems that Make Trial of a Case Easy, Expeditious and Inexpensive 81 No aspect of this case has yet been easy, expeditious or inexpensive. The likelihood of needing translators for testimony increases the probable length and cost of trial. This court has not ruled on the merits of the case; consequently, there will be no duplicative rulings or hearings and no waste of judicial resources if this court grants Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens.
82
83 This case has already demanded much judicial time and attention. Plaintiff filed suit in September 1986, almost three years ago, and has twice appealed the judgments of this court. In addition, both parties have filed numerous memoranda which have required judicial attention. While the court acknowledges that some expenditure of judicial resources is to be expected in order to resolve disputes, the courts have an interest in not expending judicial resources where the parties are so remotely connected to the United States. 84
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.