Compania Naviera Joanna SA v. Koninklijke Boskalis Westminster
569 F.3d 189, 2009 A.M.C. 1626, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 13807 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party cannot defeat a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens by arguing the unavailability of an alternative forum when that unavailability is the product of the party's own purposeful conduct, such as deliberately allowing a filing deadline to expire.
Facts:
- On March 8, 2007, the containership MSC Joanna, owned by Compañía Naviera Joanna SA and chartered by MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA (collectively 'MSC Shipping'), collided with the dredge W.D. Fairway in Chinese territorial waters.
- The W.D. Fairway was owned by Westminster International BV and chartered by Boskalis International BV (collectively 'Boskalis'), both Netherlands corporations.
- At the time of the collision, the MSC Joanna was crewed by various foreign nationals and flying a Panamanian flag, while the W.D. Fairway was sub-chartered to a Chinese company, manned by a Chinese crew, and reflagged with the Chinese flag.
- The collision was investigated by the Tianjin Maritime Safety Administration, a Chinese government entity.
- Both vessels were salvaged and received temporary repairs in Chinese shipyards.
- Boskalis believed U.S. law, which calculates a shipowner's liability based on the post-collision value of the vessel, would result in a much larger potential recovery than Chinese law, which uses a pre-voyage tonnage-based formula.
- Knowing that a limitation of liability proceeding had been started in China with a claim deadline of June 30, 2007, Boskalis made a 'reasoned decision' not to participate and to let the deadline pass.
Procedural Posture:
- Following the collision, legal proceedings, including the arrest of both vessels, began in the Tianjin Admiralty Court in China.
- MSC Shipping filed a limitation-of-liability action in the Tianjin Admiralty Court, which set a claims deadline of June 30, 2007.
- Instead of participating in the Chinese proceedings, Boskalis commenced eight separate actions in four different U.S. District Courts, seeking to attach MSC Shipping's vessels.
- To enjoin these multiple actions, MSC Shipping filed this single limitation-of-liability action in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.
- The district court enjoined Boskalis's other U.S. actions.
- MSC Shipping then filed a motion to dismiss its own action based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
- The district court granted MSC Shipping's motion to dismiss the action.
- Boskalis, as claimant and appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of forum non conveniens permit a district court to dismiss an action in favor of a foreign forum that may no longer be available, when the claimant purposefully allowed the foreign forum's filing deadline to expire?
Opinions:
Majority - Niemeyer, Circuit Judge
Yes. The doctrine of forum non conveniens permits dismissal where the claimant's own purposeful conduct caused the alternative forum to become unavailable. A party should not be allowed to assert the unavailability of an alternative forum when that unavailability is a product of its own purposeful conduct. While the doctrine generally requires an available and adequate alternative forum, an exception exists where a claimant, like Boskalis, makes a 'reasoned decision' to forgo proceedings in the proper forum and deliberately lets a deadline pass. Here, the traditional public and private interest factors overwhelmingly favor dismissal, as the United States has 'absolutely no connection' to the dispute, which occurred in China, involved foreign parties and vessels, was investigated by Chinese authorities, and is governed by Chinese law. The fact that Chinese law may result in a smaller recovery does not render the forum inadequate, as it still provides a remedy, and its method for calculating liability is the international norm. Finally, it was not an abuse of process for MSC Shipping to defensively file this U.S. limitation action to enjoin Boskalis's multiple U.S. lawsuits and then move for dismissal.
Dissenting - Shedd, Circuit Judge
No. A district court abuses its discretion by dismissing a case on forum non conveniens grounds without first definitively finding that an alternative forum was available at the time of its decision. Supreme Court precedent requires availability as a prerequisite, and the majority creates a new, unwarranted exception to this rule. The moving party, MSC Shipping, had the heavy burden to prove the Chinese forum was still available, and it failed to do so, as it was unclear whether the Chinese court would hear the claim after the deadline. By creating this exception, the majority makes a 'dramatic change from current law.' Furthermore, it is procedurally questionable for a party to commence an action and then move to dismiss its own case on forum non conveniens grounds, especially when it waited until the foreign deadline passed to do so.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant equitable exception to the forum non conveniens doctrine's availability requirement. By preventing a claimant from 'bootstrapping' their way into a U.S. court through their own deliberate inaction in the more appropriate foreign forum, the decision strengthens the judiciary's ability to police forum shopping. It prioritizes the substance of the dispute's connection to the forum over a rigid application of procedural prerequisites. This precedent gives district courts greater discretion to dismiss cases that have no real connection to the United States, even if the claimant has strategically maneuvered to make the foreign forum unavailable.
