Nestle's Products (Malaya) Ltd. v. Osaka Shosen Kaisha

S.D. New York

Nestle's Products (Malaya) Ltd. v. Osaka Shosen Kaisha

175 F. Supp. 876, 1959 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3246

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedApril 9, 1959

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 175 F. Supp. 876 (Nestle's Products (Malaya) Ltd. v. Osaka Shosen Kaisha) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nestle's Products (Malaya) Ltd. v. Osaka Shosen Kaisha, 175 F. Supp. 876, 1959 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3246 (S.D.N.Y. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PALMIERI, District Judge.

This is a libel by a Malayan consignee, against a Japanese shipowner, for damage to cargo shipped from Denmark to Singapore. The damage was apparently discovered when the cargo was unloaded, for further transhipment, in Japan. In addition to the carriage aboard the Japanese vessel, the cargo was carried, in the course of the shipment, on German and Liberian vessels, the latter controlled by Philippine nationals. The whole controversy appears to have no connection with the United States. Respondent moves for dismissal of the action on the ground of forum non conveniens.

Retention of jurisdiction in a suit such as this is within the exercise of the discretion of the District Court. The Belgenland, 1885, 114 U.S. 355, 5 S.Ct. 860, 29 L.Ed. 152. It has been said, however, that it would be “unusual to [decline] jurisdiction even at an early stage [in the proceedings, where] the foreigners interested were of different nationalities; they had no common home to which they might be sent to try their case; [and] no agreement has been made that litigation be carried on in a particular country.” The Mandu, 2 Cir., 1939, 102 F.2d 459, 462. More recently, our Court of Appeals has said that “if the defendant would avoid the suit, he must show that he will be unfairly prejudiced, unless [the suit] be removed to some other jurisdiction.” Kloeckner Reederi Und Kohlenhandel G. M. B. H. v. A/S Hakedal, 2 Cir., 210 F.2d 754, 756, appeal dismissed 1954, 348 U.S. 801, 75 S.Ct. 17, 99 L.Ed. 633.

Neither respondent's contention that Japanese law will apply (a contention which is not at all certain of being upheld), nor the fact that the witnesses are not readily available in this forum, are proper grounds for declining juris[877]*877diction. These factors are always present in cases of this sort; and there is no one forum in which all the witnesses will be readily available.

The motion is, accordingly, denied.

So ordered.

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

PALMIERI, District Judge.

This is a libel by a Malayan consignee, against a Japanese shipowner, for damage to cargo shipped from Denmark to Singapore. The damage was apparently discovered when the cargo was unloaded, for further transhipment, in Japan. In addition to the carriage aboard the Japanese vessel, the cargo was carried, in the course of the shipment, on German and Liberian vessels, the latter controlled by Philippine nationals. The whole controversy appears to have no connection with the United States. Respondent moves for dismissal of the action on the ground of forum non conveniens.

Retention of jurisdiction in a suit such as this is within the exercise of the discretion of the District Court. The Belgenland, 1885, 114 U.S. 355, 5 S.Ct. 860, 29 L.Ed. 152. It has been said, however, that it would be “unusual to [decline] jurisdiction even at an early stage [in the proceedings, where] the foreigners interested were of different nationalities; they had no common home to which they might be sent to try their case; [and] no agreement has been made that litigation be carried on in a particular country.” The Mandu, 2 Cir., 1939, 102 F.2d 459, 462. More recently, our Court of Appeals has said that “if the defendant would avoid the suit, he must show that he will be unfairly prejudiced, unless [the suit] be removed to some other jurisdiction.” Kloeckner Reederi Und Kohlenhandel G. M. B. H. v. A/S Hakedal, 2 Cir., 210 F.2d 754, 756, appeal dismissed 1954, 348 U.S. 801, 75 S.Ct. 17, 99 L.Ed. 633.

Neither respondent's contention that Japanese law will apply (a contention which is not at all certain of being upheld), nor the fact that the witnesses are not readily available in this forum, are proper grounds for declining juris[877]*877diction. These factors are always present in cases of this sort; and there is no one forum in which all the witnesses will be readily available.

The motion is, accordingly, denied.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 F. Supp. 876, 1959 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nestles-products-malaya-ltd-v-osaka-shosen-kaisha-nysd-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack