A/S Dan-Bunkering Ltd. v. M/V Centrans Demeter
1:14-cv-00297
S.D. Ala.Mar 31, 2015Background
- Dan‑Bunkering (Denmark) supplied bunker fuel to the M/V Centrans Demeter in Hong Kong on November 18, 2011 and was not paid in full.
- The Bunker Contract was between Dan‑Bunkering and the charterer Zhenhua (China); Aries Shipping (Hong Kong) owned the vessel but was not a signatory.
- The Bunker Contract incorporated Dan‑Bunkering’s General Terms (March 2010) containing a choice‑of‑law clause: Danish law governs but the seller may invoke laws of the flag, place of delivery, or where the vessel is found to assert maritime liens/ship arrest rights.
- Dan‑Bunkering arrested the Vessel in Mobile, Alabama to enforce a claimed U.S. maritime lien for necessaries; Aries moved to vacate arrest, dismiss and reduce security.
- The Court ordered supplemental briefing on choice of law and forum non conveniens, then found Hong Kong law governs contract formation and conditioned a dismissal on Aries submitting to Hong Kong jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which law governs contract formation | U.S. law should apply so plaintiff can enforce a U.S. maritime lien under the incorporated clause | Hong Kong law governs because the transaction was negotiated and performed there and the vessel is Hong Kong‑flagged | Hong Kong law governs formation and incorporation of the General Terms |
| Enforceability/effect of choice‑of‑law clause to create U.S. maritime lien | Clause permits seller to "benefit from any law granting a maritime lien" so U.S. law applies to create a lien | Clause must be interpreted under governing law of contract formation; if Hong Kong law governs, U.S. lien rule need not apply | Court declined to assume U.S. law; because formation governed by Hong Kong law, U.S. maritime lien not presumptively available here |
| Whether case should be dismissed on forum non conveniens | Plaintiff: U.S. is proper and only forum to vindicate maritime lien remedy | Aries: Hong Kong is more appropriate; applying foreign law favors dismissal | Case dismissed on forum non conveniens: private and public factors favor Hong Kong; dismissal conditioned on Aries waiving jurisdiction/limitations defenses and submitting to Hong Kong jurisdiction |
| Availability of adequate alternative forum | Plaintiff contends alternative forums cannot provide plaintiff's preferred maritime‑lien remedy | Aries says Hong Kong (and Denmark) offer adequate remedies (contract/breach/open account) and are more convenient | Court found Hong Kong an adequate alternative forum but required Aries to waive defenses to make it "available" |
Key Cases Cited
- Perez & Compania (Cataluna), S.A. v. M/V Mexico I, 826 F.2d 1449 (5th Cir.) (forum non conveniens used to dismiss maritime necessaries claim)
- Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 571 (U.S. 1953) (factors for admiralty choice‑of‑law analysis)
- Dresdner Bank AG v. M/V Olympia Voyager, 446 F.3d 1377 (11th Cir.) (most‑significant‑relationship test for maritime contract choice of law)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 F.3d 235 (U.S.) (forum non conveniens standards and adequacy of alternative forum)
- Sigalas v. Lido Maritime, Inc., 776 F.2d 1512 (11th Cir.) (foreign‑law considerations favoring dismissal)
- Membrosreno v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 425 F.3d 932 (11th Cir.) (elements plaintiff must show to avoid forum non conveniens dismissal)
- VebaChemie A.G. v. M/V Getafix, 711 F.2d 1243 (5th Cir.) (Hong Kong an adequate forum in maritime cases)
- Leon v. Million Air, Inc., 251 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir.) (procedural aspects of conditional dismissal on forum non conveniens)