Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. Diakan Hope, S.A.

423 F. Supp. 1220, 1977 A.M.C. 24
CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedDecember 2, 1976
DocketCV 75-1914 RF, CV 75-3706 RF
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 423 F. Supp. 1220 (Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. Diakan Hope, S.A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. Diakan Hope, S.A., 423 F. Supp. 1220, 1977 A.M.C. 24 (C.D. Cal. 1976).

Opinion

JUDGMENT AND ORDER DIRECTING ARBITRATION AND STAYING PROCEEDINGS HEREIN

HAUK, District Judge.

WHEREAS, Diakan Hope, S.A. moved this Court to stay all further proceedings before this Court and to direct that all disputes between the parties be referred to arbitration in London; and

WHEREAS, said motion was heard on November 1 and November 8,1976, and the Court having heard oral argument and considered the points and authorities submitted, the various papers and pleadings on file herein and documents presented at the hearing;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT:

1. The actions herein are stayed and the parties herein are directed to arbitration in London pursuant to Clause 17 of the Charter Party dated September 18, 1972, a copy of which is attached as Appendix C to this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law herein; and
2. The stay of these actions shall continue until otherwise ordered by this Court on good cause shown, and in any event at least until the London arbitration proceedings are completed and the award thereof is final; and
3. To prepare for said arbitration the parties shall have the opportunity for such discovery as they would be entitled to under the rules and jurisdiction of this Court, and this Court may exercise its continuing jurisdiction to entertain motions of the parties regarding discovery; and
4. All claims which have been made to date in a timely manner in the within actions shall be deemed timely made and not time barred in the London arbitration proceeding.

DECISION, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

DIAKAN HOPE, S.A.’s motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration came on regularly for hearing on November 1 and 8, 1976, all the parties being present and represented by counsel and, after considering the points and authorities filed, the pleadings and records on file herein, and documents presented at the hearing, and after hearing oral argument, the Court makes and adopts the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Honorable A. Andrew Hauk presiding and acting for the Honorable Robert Firth by assignment of the full Court, Central District of California:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On or about August 4, 1976, plaintiffs in Action No. CV-75-1914 RF, now pending in this Court, and Marine Chartering Co., Inc. and Polynesia Line, Ltd. (hereinafter “Charterers”) entered into the Settlement Agreement. 1 In conjunction therewith plaintiffs in Action No. CV-75-1914 RF and Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Highlands Insurance Company and the Underwriters at Lloyds and London Companies subscribing Special Cargo Policy RAL *1222 6467 (said plaintiffs and insurers, hereinafter referred to as “Cargo Interests”) executed the Assignments to Charterers and Covenants. 2

2. Pursuant to said Settlement Agreement and said Assignments to Charterers and Covenants Cargo Interests assigned to Charterers all their claims, demands, rights and/or causes of action which Cargo Interests had or may thereafter acquire against the Owners and/or Operators of the M/V POLYNESIA DIAKAN for or on account of the loss of freight and/or loss of and damage to cargo shipped from Pago Pago, American Samoa on board the M/V POLYNESIA DIAKAN, voyage 21N, in May 1975. By the terms of said Settlement Agreement and Assignments to Charterers and Covenants, Charterers now possess, own and control all claims, demands, rights and/or causes of action in the captioned actions against DIAKAN HOPE, S.A.

3. DIAKAN HOPE, S.A., owner of the M/V POLYNESIA DIAKAN, (hereinafter “Owners”) and Charterers entered into a charter of the M/V POLYNESIA DIAKAN pursuant to the terms and conditions of that certain charter party dated September 18, 1972 with all addenda thereto. 3 Said charter party is a commercial agreement. Clause 17 of said charter party provides:

“That should any dispute arise between Owners and the Charterers, the matter in dispute shall be referred to three persons at London, one to be appointed by each of the parties hereto and the third by the two so chosen; their decision or that of any two of them, shall be final, and for the purpose of enforcing any award, this agreement may be made a rule of the Court. The Arbitrators shall be commercial men.”

4. Clause 17 of said charter party encompasses all claims, demands, rights, and/or causes of action of Charterers in the captioned actions whether owned directly or acquired by assignment or subrogation or otherwise.

5. DIAKAN HOPE, S.A. is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of a foreign country.

6. DIAKAN HOPE, S.A. has not waived its right to arbitration of disputes between Owners and Charterers. Charterers have suffered no prejudice as a consequence of DIAKAN HOPE, S.A. not demanding arbitration until August 17, 1976 or by reason of the consolidated litigation herein, to exist, Nos. CV 75-1914 RF and CV 75-3706 RF.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The aforementioned charter party contains an arbitration agreement arising out of a legal relationship which is commercial. Said arbitration agreement falls under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, which is enforced in the United States in accordance with 9 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. 4

2. Said charter party is a maritime transaction as defined in 9 U.S.C. § l. 5 Clause 17 of the charter party is within the purview of 9 U.S.C. § 2 6 and is a written *1223 provision in a maritime transaction to settle by arbitration a controversy arising out of such transaction.

3. By virtue of said Settlement Agreement and Assignments to Charterers and Covenants, all claims, demands, rights and/or causes of action remaining in the captioned actions are between Owners and Charterers.

4. Said charter party, and Clause 17 thereof in particular, is a valid and enforceable agreement.

5. All claims, demands, rights and/or causes of actions in the captioned actions fall within Clause 17 of said charter party and Clause 17 requires that these disputes be referred to arbitration in London.

6. This Court, having jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this controversy, directs pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 206 7

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
423 F. Supp. 1220, 1977 A.M.C. 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/star-kist-foods-inc-v-diakan-hope-sa-cacd-1976.