Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, Inc. v. Servicios Refrigerados Internacionales, S.A. de C.V. et al, No. 3:2019cv00283 - Document 10 (S.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens [Doc. No. 7 ]. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 5/28/2019. (anh)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FORUM NON CONVENIENS SERVICIOS REFRIGERADOS INTERNACIONALES, S.A. DE C.V., [Doc. No. 7] Plaintiff, 13 14 15 Case No.: 19-CV-283-CAB-BLM 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint 20 for forum non conveniens. [Doc. No. 7.] The motion has been fully briefed and the Court 21 finds it suitable for determination on the papers and without oral argument. See S.D. Cal. 22 CivLR 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted. 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 On February 7, 2019, Plaintiff Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, 25 Inc., filed a complaint for subrogation against Defendant Servicios Refrigerados 26 Internacionales, S.A. de C.V. [Doc. No. 1.] The complaint alleges causes of action for: 27 (1) Negligence; (2) Bailment; and (3) liability under the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. 28 § 14706. [Id. at 5–8.] 1 19-CV-283-CAB-BLM 1 Plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Pennsylvania. [Id. 2 at ¶ 1.1] Defendant is a Mexican corporation with its principal place of business in Mexico. 3 [Id. at ¶ 2.] According to the complaint, on or about February 7, 2018, Plaintiff’s insured, 4 Driscoll’s, loaded a cargo of berries onto a delivery truck provided by Defendant at 5 Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico, to be delivered to Watsonville, California. 6 Driscoll’s contracted with Defendant for this carriage and delivery. [Id.] On or about 7 February 8, 2018, while attempting to stop at a roadside check in Sonora, Mexico, 8 Defendant’s truck driver failed to stop and struck a retaining wall, damaging the cargo of 9 berries beyond saleable use. [Id. at ¶ 8.] Upon Plaintiff’s payment of the claim underlying 10 Driscoll’s loss, Plaintiff claims it is now fully subrogated to Driscoll’s interest and brings 11 this action against Defendant. [Id. at ¶ 17.] Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the 12 terms of its carriage contract with Driscoll’s and became liable for the damages caused. 13 [Id. at ¶ 10.] [Id. at ¶ 7.] 14 On April 2, 2019, Defendant moved to dismiss for forum non conveniens. [Doc. No. 15 7.] Plaintiff filed its opposition [Doc. No. 8] on April 23, 2019, and Defendant filed its 16 reply [Doc. No. 9] on April 30, 2019. 17 II. LEGAL STANDARD 18 The doctrine of forum non conveniens grants discretion to district courts to dismiss 19 an action where “a court abroad is the more appropriate and convenient forum for 20 adjudicating the controversy.” Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 21 U.S. 422, 425 (2007). “To prevail on a motion to dismiss based upon forum non 22 conveniens, a defendant bears the burden of demonstrating an adequate alternative forum, 23 and that the balance of private and public interest factors favors dismissal.” Carijano v. 24 Occidental Petroleum Corp., 643 F.3d 1216, 1224 (9th Cir. 2011). A plaintiff’s choice of 25 forum is generally entitled to deference, especially where the plaintiff is a United States 26 27 28 1 Document numbers and page references are to those assigned by CM/ECF for the docket entry. 2 19-CV-283-CAB-BLM 1 citizen or resident, because it is presumed a plaintiff will choose her “home forum.” See 2 Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 255 (1981). This deference is “far from 3 absolute,” however, and it is within the court’s discretion to decide whether a foreign forum 4 is more convenient. Lockman Found. v. Evangelical Alliance Mission, 930 F.2d 764, 767 5 (9th Cir. 1991); see also Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 255, n. 23 (“A citizen’s forum choice 6 should not be given dispositive weight.”). 7 The presumption in favor of the plaintiff’s choice of forum may be rebutted through 8 a clear showing of facts that either: “(1) establish such oppressiveness and vexation to a 9 defendant as to be out of all proportion to plaintiff’s convenience, which may be shown to 10 be slight or nonexistent, or (2) make trial in the chosen forum inappropriate because of 11 considerations affecting the court’s own administrative and legal problems.” Koster v. 12 Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518, 524 (1947); Cheng v. Boeing Co., 708 F.2d 13 1406, 1410 (9th Cir. 1983). 14 III. 15 DISCUSSION A. Carmack Amendment 16 Plaintiff’s opposition primarily contends that Defendant’s liability for the damage to 17 the cargo is governed by the Carmack Amendment, 49 U.S.C. §14706, and thus 18 Defendant’s liability is to be determined under U.S. federal law, preventing transfer to a 19 Mexican court. [Doc. No. 8 at 3–5.] Defendant contends the Carmack Amendment does 20 not apply because it is silent as to shipments from a foreign country to the United States. 21 [Doc. No. 9 at 3.] The Court first addresses whether the Carmack Amendment applies in 22 this case. 23 The Carmack Amendment “codifies the common-law rule that a carrier, though not 24 an absolute insurer, is liable for damage to goods transported by it unless it can show that 25 the damage was caused by (a) the act of God; (b) the public enemy; (c) the act of the shipper 26 himself; (d) public authority; (e) or the inherent vice or nature of the goods.” Missouri 27 Pac. R.R. Co. v. Elmore & Stahl, 377 U.S. 134, 137 (1964); see 49 U.S.C. § 14706. With 28 respect to motor carriers, the Carmack Amendment applies to the extent the property is 3 19-CV-283-CAB-BLM 1 transported between the points specified in 49 U.S.C. § 13501. With respect to a shipment 2 involving a foreign country, the statute provides jurisdiction over motor carrier liability for 3 transportation between “the United States and a place in a foreign country to the extent the 4 transportation is in the United States.” 49 U.S.C. § 13501(1)(E) (emphasis added). 5 In Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Limited v. Regal Beloit Corp., 561 U.S. 89 (2010), the 6 Supreme Court held that “Carmack does not apply if the property is received at an overseas 7 location under a through bill that covers the transport into an inland location in the United 8 States.” Id. at 103 (emphasis added). In such a case, there is no receiving carrier that 9 “receives” the property “for [domestic] transportation.” Id. However, the Court went on 10 to note that this decision did not address “if Carmack applies to goods initially received in 11 Canada or Mexico, for import into the United States.” Id. The jurisdictional reach of the 12 Carmack Amendment “is determined by reference to 49 U.S.C. § 13501.” Project Hope 13 v. M/V Ibn Sina, 250 F.3d 67, 74 (2nd Cir. 2001). 14 As noted above, U.S.C. § 13501(1)(E) specifically states, “to the extent the 15 transportation is in the United States.” Consequently, if the alleged loss or damage to the 16 cargo occurred during the domestic leg of the transportation in the United States, the 17 Carmack Amendment would apply. See Reider v. Thompson, 339 U.S. 113, 117 (1950) 18 (holding that the foreign portion of the transport terminated at the United States border, but 19 the domestic leg of the transport fell within the purview of the Carmack Amendment). 20 Here, the alleged loss or damage occurred entirely in Mexico. [Doc. 7-4 at 22, 24.] The 21 transport never made it out of Mexico, and therefore under U.S.C. § 13501(1)(E), there is 22 no domestic leg of the journey that falls within the purview of the Carmack Amendment. 23 Accordingly, the Carmack Amendment does not apply in this case. 24 B. Adequate Alternative Forum 25 An alternative forum is deemed adequate if: (1) the defendant is amenable to process 26 there; and (2) the other jurisdiction offers a satisfactory remedy. See Piper Aircraft, 454 27 U.S. at 254, n. 22; Leetsch v. Freedman, 260 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2001). It is only in 28 “rare circumstances . . . where the remedy provided by the alternative forum . . . is so 4 19-CV-283-CAB-BLM 1 clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory, that it is no remedy at all,” that this requirement is not 2 met. Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 254, n. 22. 3 Here, Defendant has agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of a Mexican court, accept 4 service of process issued by a Mexican court, and waive any defenses based on statute of 5 limitations to facilitate the resolution of Plaintiff’s claims. [Doc. No. 7-1 at 12, Doc. No. 6 7-3 at ¶¶ 3–5.] Furthermore, Defendant contends a Mexican court has jurisdiction because 7 the incident giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Sonora, Mexico, the contract giving 8 rise to Plaintiff’s claims was entered in Mexico and is explicitly governed by Mexican law, 9 and both Defendant and Driscoll’s are incorporated in and principally located in Mexico.2 10 Defendant also contends that the remedy sought by Plaintiff for the value of cargo is 11 equally available in a Mexican court through tort or contract. Defendant attached a 12 declaration from a Mexican attorney who has been practicing law in Mexico since 1978 13 involving similar disputes who states, “the issues of liability and damages arising from this 14 incident can be fully adjudicated by the Mexican courts with the appropriate jurisdiction 15 for this dispute being the State of Sonora where the alleged incident occurred.” [Doc. No. 16 7-2 at ¶ 4.] 17 Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendant is amenable to service of process in Mexico 18 but instead contends that Defendant’s liability falls under the Carmack Amendment and 19 U.S. federal law. As discussed above, the Carmack Amendment does not apply, and 20 Plaintiff is not precluded from seeking a similar remedy in Mexican court for the value of 21 the cargo. Accordingly, Mexico is an adequate alternative forum. 22 C. Balance of Private and Public Interest Factors 23 The Court next addresses whether the private and public interest factors can rebut 24 the presumption in favor of Plaintiff’s choice of forum. At the outset, the Court notes that 25 Plaintiff is not a California corporation, but rather a Pennsylvania corporation and therefore 26 27 The contract attached to Defendant’s motion at Exhibit 1 indicates that Driscoll’s Operaciones, S.A. de C.V., a Mexican corporation, is the signatory to the contract with Defendant. [Doc. No. 7-4 at 21.] 2 28 5 19-CV-283-CAB-BLM 1 Plaintiff’s choice of forum, while still given deference, will not be absolute. Plaintiff also 2 fails to divulge where Driscoll’s is incorporated. It appears there is a Driscoll’s U.S.A. as 3 well as a Driscoll’s Mexico. Defendant has shown that it contracted with Driscoll’s 4 Mexico. Even if Driscoll’s U.S.A. is a California corporation, it was operating in Mexico 5 through a Mexican corporation or subsidiary as Driscoll’s Operaciones, S.A. de C.V. “In 6 an era of increasing international commerce, parties who choose to engage in international 7 transactions should know that when their foreign operations lead to litigation they cannot 8 expect always to bring their foreign opponents into a United States forum when every 9 reasonable consideration leads to the conclusion that the site of the litigation should be 10 elsewhere.” Mizokami Bros. of Ariz., Inc. v. Baychem Corp., 556 F.2d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 11 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1035 (1978). 12 Private interest factors include “(1) relative ease of access to sources of proof; (2) 13 the availability of compulsory process for attendance of hostile witnesses, and cost of 14 obtaining attendance of willing witnesses; (3) possibility of viewing subject premises; (4) 15 all other factors that render trial of the case expeditious and inexpensive.” Creative Tech., 16 Ltd. v. Aztech Sys. Pte., Ltd., 61 F.3d 696, 703 (9th Cir. 1995). Public interest factors 17 include “(1) administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; (2) imposition of 18 jury duty on the people of a community that has no relation to the litigation; (3) local 19 interest in having localized controversies decided at home; (4) the interest in having a 20 diversity case tried in a forum familiar with the law that governs the action; (5) the 21 avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflicts of law.” Id. at 703–04. 22 1. Private Interest Factors 23 As to the ease of access to sources of proof and availability of witnesses, Defendant 24 contends that all the material witnesses are in Mexico, including Defendant, Driscoll’s 25 Mexico, Defendant’s driver from the incident, percipient witnesses to the incident, the 26 Mexican police who responded to the incident, witnesses related to the loading and 27 disposition of the cargo, and witnesses to the contract between Plaintiff and Defendant. 28 [Doc. No. 7-1 at 15.] Furthermore, Defendant contends that any third-party defendant who 6 19-CV-283-CAB-BLM 1 may be liable under principles of contribution or indemnity is virtually guaranteed to be in 2 Mexico and not subject to personal jurisdiction in California. [Id. at 16.] Plaintiff contends 3 that the real issue in this case is the legal liability of a carrier whose U.S. headquarters is 4 in San Diego which can only be established using testimony of witnesses residing within 5 California. [Doc. No. 8 at 5.] Plaintiff also contends that Defendant’s president and 6 relevant witnesses concerning the establishment of the contract are in California and 7 liability is not an issue so there are no relevant premises to review. [Id.] Defendant does 8 not indicate that liability is not at issue, and its potential need for percipient witnesses to 9 the incident or for seeking contribution from a third-party suggests otherwise. 10 The Court is not persuaded that because Defendant receives mail in San Diego or 11 that its president executed her declaration in Chula Vista that this disqualifies the potential 12 need for the numerous other material witnesses to the incident cited to by Defendant who 13 are in Mexico.3 Moreover, a corporate officer who has contact with a forum only with 14 regard to the performance of his official duties is not subject to personal jurisdiction in that 15 forum. See Chem Lab Products, Inc. v. Stepanek, 554 F.2d 371 (9th Cir. 1977). A Mexican 16 court should have no issue haling into court the president of a Mexican corporation for 17 testimony in Mexico as Plaintiff suggests. Plaintiff also does not oppose Defendant’s 18 contention that Driscoll’s with whom Defendant contracted is a Mexican corporation or 19 subsidiary. The Court does not find that addressing which documents cited to by Plaintiff 20 and Defendant that are at issue in this case, if any, will be determinative of a different 21 outcome and both parties appear in dispute on this issue.4 Nevertheless, the Federal Motor 22 Carrier Safety Administration document Plaintiff cites to indicates Defendant’s business 23 address is in Mexico, and the Regulation for Transport Providers document is signed by an 24 entity Defendant is not affiliated with. [Doc. No. 8-2 at 2; Doc. No. 8-4 at 4.] 25 26 The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration document attached as Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff’s opposition lists Defendant’s business address at: Transportistas Num 407, Leon, GJ 37290. [Doc. No. 82 at 2.] 4 Accordingly, Defendant’s objection to evidence [Doc. No. 9-2] is denied as moot. 3 27 28 7 19-CV-283-CAB-BLM 1 As to enforceability of judgment, Defendant contends that Plaintiff can seek to 2 enforce a Mexican judgment in the United States. Plaintiff contends the proper standard 3 under this element is whether Defendant has assets which would satisfy a Mexican 4 judgment but offers no legal authority on this point. Defendant has not disclosed any 5 information establishing assets to satisfy a judgment. 6 Plaintiff would have no difficulty enforcing a Mexican judgment in the United States does 7 not compel the Court to presume Defendant does or does not have sufficient assets. 8 Therefore, this factor does not favor either side. Defendant’s contentions that 9 Although the mere fact that this case involves conduct that occurred outside this 10 forum is not enough for dismissal, the fact that all relevant conduct took place in Mexico 11 bolsters the Court’s confidence that key witnesses and physical evidence are in Mexico. 12 See Loya v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., 583 F.3d 656, 659 (9th Cir. 2009) 13 (holding that dismissal for forum non conveniens was appropriate where plaintiff was a 14 resident of the forum state, but all alleged conduct took place in Mexico); see also Contact 15 Lumber Co. v. P.T. Moges Shipping Co. Ltd., 918 F.2d 1446, 1451 (9th Cir. 1990) 16 (affirming the District Court’s dismissal for forum non conveniens where plaintiff was an 17 American corporation, but evidence and witnesses were located in the Philippines). 18 Accordingly, considering the location of the evidence on liability issues, the inherent 19 difficulty of bringing hostile witnesses before the U.S. courts, and the potential inability to 20 implead third-party defendants, the balance of private interest factors weighs in favor of 21 dismissal. 22 2. Public Interest Factors 23 Plaintiff has offered no argument that the public interest factors weigh against 24 dismissal and no opposition to Defendant’s contentions that they weigh in favor of 25 dismissal. Defendant contends that the time and resources this Court would spend on this 26 case are better spent elsewhere as this case belongs in Mexico. “Administrative difficulties 27 follow for courts when litigation is piled up in congested centers instead of being handled 28 at its origin.” Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947). The Court agrees that 8 19-CV-283-CAB-BLM 1 reasonable steps to reduce court congestion should be taken and this case should properly 2 be handled at its origin in Mexico. The Court cannot justify burdening California jurors to 3 try a case that has little to nothing to do with California. 4 With respect to the local interest factor Defendant contends that California and the 5 U.S. have little, if any, local interest in deciding this matter compared to Mexico. The local 6 interest factor looks to whether there is “an identifiable local interest” in this forum. 7 Tuazon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 433 F.3d 1163, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006). The interest 8 of the foreign forum can also be relevant. See Loya, 583 F.3d at 665 (affirming a decision 9 that found that Mexico’s interest in a case outweighed the forum state’s interest). While 10 California and the U.S. have an interest in providing its corporations a proper forum to 11 resolve liability disputes, that interest is weakened here where Plaintiff is not a California 12 corporation and Driscoll’s is a multinational corporation which was operating in Mexico 13 and contracted with Defendant which is a Mexican corporation. The subject incident took 14 place in Mexico and material proof and witnesses regarding liability are mostly, if not all, 15 in Mexico. As discussed above, there is little to no connection with the subject incident 16 and California and either parties’ principal place of business. Therefore, the local interest 17 factor weighs in favor of litigating this case in Mexico. 18 As to the familiarity with the governing law factor, Defendant contends that the 19 contract which forms the basis of Plaintiff’s complaint calls for application of Mexican 20 law, and even if it did not a Mexican court analyzing this matter would still apply Mexican 21 law. [Doc. No. 7-1 at 20.] The Ninth Circuit has held that “[b]efore dismissing a case for 22 forum non conveniens, a district court must first make a choice of law determination.” 23 Zipfel v. Halliburton Co., 832 F.2d 1477, 1482 (9th Cir. 1987), amended on other grounds 24 by 861 F.2d 565 (9th Cir. 1988). However, the choice of law analysis is only determinative 25 when the case involves a United States statute requiring venue in the United States. See 26 Creative Tech., 61 F.3d at 700. Where no such law is implicated, the choice of law 27 determination is given much less deference on a forum non conveniens inquiry. Since 28 “there is no arguably applicable law that would end the forum non conveniens inquiry [in 9 19-CV-283-CAB-BLM 1 this case], . . . no potentially dispositive choice of law determination need have been made.” 2 See Gemini Capital Group, Inc. v. Yap Fishing Corp., 150 F.3d 1088, 1092 (9th Cir. 1998) 3 (“This case does not implicate any United States law which mandates venue in the United 4 States district courts. Consequently, the applicability of United States law to the various 5 causes of action ‘should ordinarily not be given conclusive or even substantive weight.’”) 6 (quoting Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 247). The Court discussed above that the Carmack 7 Amendment does not apply here, which was Plaintiff’s primary opposition. Plaintiff’s 8 other claims do not mandate venue in the United States and therefore a dispositive choice 9 of law determination need not be made here. 10 After considering the private and public interest factors discussed above, and in light 11 of Plaintiff’s failure to offer any opposition to the public interest factors, the Court is 12 persuaded that these factors support dismissing this matter because Mexico is the more 13 appropriate forum and any convenience to Plaintiff’s choice of forum here is slight or 14 nonexistent. 15 16 17 18 19 IV. CONCLUSION Based on the above, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens and Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED. It is SO ORDERED. Dated: May 28, 2019 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 19-CV-283-CAB-BLM
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
