Alcoa Steamship Co. v. M/V Nordic Regent

Second Circuit

Alcoa Steamship Co. v. M/V Nordic Regent

654 F.2d 165, 1979 A.M.C. 1

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedAugust 31, 1978

DocketNo. 826, Docket 78-7054

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 654 F.2d 165 (Alcoa Steamship Co. v. M/V Nordic Regent) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alcoa Steamship Co. v. M/V Nordic Regent, 654 F.2d 165, 1979 A.M.C. 1 (2d Cir. 1978).

Pincite

Opinions

TIMBERS, Circuit Judge:

In this action commenced by Alcoa Steamship Company in the Southern District of New York to recover damages from Norcross Shipping Co., Inc. sustained as the result of a collision in Trinidad between Alcoa’s pier and Norcross’ vessel, the sole [166]*166issue is whether the district court abused its discretion in granting Norcross’ motion to dismiss the action on the ground of forum non conveniens.

After carefully weighing the relevant factors set forth in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947), the district court found that Norcross would be unduly inconvenienced in many respects and perhaps denied an opportunity to vindicate its legal claims against the Pilots’ Association if the case were tried in New York. The district court found this imbalance to be significant enough to overcome the usual reluctance of courts in this Circuit to apply the doctrine of forum non conveniens when it would force an American to bring an action outside the United States.

We hold that it was within the district court’s discretion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens under the circumstances of this case, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in doing so. We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Conner’s opinion of January 17, 1978. 453 F.Supp. 10.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

TIMBERS, Circuit Judge:

In this action commenced by Alcoa Steamship Company in the Southern District of New York to recover damages from Norcross Shipping Co., Inc. sustained as the result of a collision in Trinidad between Alcoa’s pier and Norcross’ vessel, the sole [166]*166issue is whether the district court abused its discretion in granting Norcross’ motion to dismiss the action on the ground of forum non conveniens.

After carefully weighing the relevant factors set forth in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947), the district court found that Norcross would be unduly inconvenienced in many respects and perhaps denied an opportunity to vindicate its legal claims against the Pilots’ Association if the case were tried in New York. The district court found this imbalance to be significant enough to overcome the usual reluctance of courts in this Circuit to apply the doctrine of forum non conveniens when it would force an American to bring an action outside the United States.

We hold that it was within the district court’s discretion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens under the circumstances of this case, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in doing so. We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Conner’s opinion of January 17, 1978. 453 F.Supp. 10.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

654 F.2d 165, 1979 A.M.C. 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alcoa-steamship-co-v-mv-nordic-regent-ca2-1978.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack