Mayhem Crude, Inc. v. Borrelli Walsh Pte. Ltd. ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 13 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAYHEM CRUDE, INC., a Marshall No. 20-15904
Islands Corporation,
D.C. No. 4:19-cv-04622-HSG
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
BORRELLI WALSH PTE. LTD., a
Singapore Company; COSIMO BORRELLI;
JASON KARDACHI; STANDARD
CHARTERED BANK,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 10, 2021
San Francisco, California
Before: McKEOWN, IKUTA, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Mayhem Crude, Inc., a corporation organized under Marshallese law,
appeals the district court’s dismissal of its admiralty action. The district court
dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction and, in the alternative, based on forum
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
non conveniens. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. In view of
Sinochem, we address only the alternative holding. Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malay.
Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 425 (2007) (holding that we need not resolve
personal jurisdiction because “in any event, a foreign tribunal is plainly the more
suitable arbiter of the merits of the case”). We affirm.
We may reverse the district court’s forum non conveniens determination
only when it clearly abuses its discretion. Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa, 211 F.3d 509,
511 (9th Cir. 2000). “A district court may abuse its discretion by relying on an
erroneous view of the law, by relying on a clearly erroneous assessment of the
evidence, or by striking an unreasonable balance of relevant factors.” Id. Mayhem
Crude challenges the district court’s balance of the relevant factors, arguing that
Defendants-Appellees did not establish “such oppression and vexation over [them]
as to be out of proportion to [Mayhem Crude’s] convenience.”
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing based on forum
non conveniens. It first determined that Singapore was an adequate alternative
forum and then considered and balanced the relevant factors. See Dole Food Co. v.
Watts, 303 F.3d 1104, 1118 (9th Cir. 2002) (“A party moving to dismiss based on
forum non conveniens bears the burden of showing (1) that there is an adequate
alternative forum, and (2) that the balance of private and public interest factors
favors dismissal.”). The district court found that “the relevant evidence and
2
witnesses are located abroad” and that “litigating in the United States what is
essentially a foreign dispute involving entirely foreign parties, foreign acts and a
related foreign proceeding [in Singapore] would impose unnecessary costs.” See
id. at 1119 (“Private interests of the litigants include ease of access to sources of
proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses,
and cost of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses; and likelihood of a fair
trial.”). The district court also found that California’s interest in resolving the case
was “de minimis,” given that “the only connection California has to the case is
redelivery of the Vessel.” See id. (“Public interest factors include court
congestion, local interest in resolving the controversy, and preference for having a
forum apply a law with which it is familiar.”); see also Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno,
454 U.S. 235, 256 (1981) (“Because the central purpose of any forum non
conveniens inquiry is to ensure that the trial is convenient, a foreign plaintiff’s
choice deserves less deference.”). The district court did not err in balancing the
appropriate factors.
AFFIRMED.
3