Cotemar S.A. De C.V. v. Beaufort
190 F. Supp. 3d 577
E.D. La.2016Background
- June 24, 2011: the U.S.-flag OSSV M/V HOS BEAUFORT collided with the Marshall Islands–flag SSV IOLAIR in international waters off Mexico while both working for Pemex; IOLAIR owner/operator entities are foreign (Exeter, Cotemar, Ocean Oil).
- Hornbeck entities (U.S. corporations) own/operate BEAUFORT; vessel later entered U.S. waters and was arrested in E.D. La. in Feb. 2014; Steamship Mutual posted a $15,400,000 letter of undertaking (LOU) to secure release.
- Cotemar interests (plaintiffs) sued in rem against the BEAUFORT in E.D. La.; earlier they filed an in personam action in S.D. Tex. which was dismissed on forum non conveniens and affirmed/remanded by the Fifth Circuit for limited issues.
- Cotemar later moved to dismiss their in rem claims in E.D. La.; Norwegian Hull Club (NHC) seeks court approval to be assigned the LOU and to be subrogated to plaintiffs’ rights; Hornbeck moved to dismiss based on res judicata/collateral estoppel.
- Court approved assignment of the LOU to NHC, granted Cotemar’s motion to dismiss their in rem claims without conditions, and granted Hornbeck’s motion to dismiss the action without prejudice under collateral estoppel (forum non conveniens preclusion).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether assignment of the LOU to NHC should be approved | NHC (moving on plaintiffs’ behalf) contends the LOU is assignable and NHC is an intended beneficiary/subrogee; court approval appropriate because LOU is silent on assignment | Hornbeck says motion is procedurally improper and not a proper declaratory action | Approved: court granted NHC’s motion to approve assignment (LOU silent on non-assignment; court oversight appropriate) |
| 2) Whether Cotemar’s voluntary dismissal of in rem claims should be conditioned on cooperation with NHC | Cotemar seeks dismissal and represents they will cooperate with NHC but opposes conditioning dismissal on extra requirements | NHC sought conditions (depositions, document production in U.S.); Hornbeck did not oppose dismissal | Granted without conditions: court accepts Cotemar’s representation of cooperation and declines to impose NHC’s conditions |
| 3) Whether prior S.D. Tex. forum non conveniens dismissal precludes the E.D. La. in rem action (res judicata / collateral estoppel) | NHC argues prior dismissal did not decide in rem action; Mexican forum differences and in rem remedy issues materially distinguish the cases | Hornbeck argues the forum non conveniens ruling (Mexico more appropriate) was actually litigated and identical in issue and facts, so estops relitigation | Granted for Hornbeck: court applies collateral estoppel on the forum non conveniens issue and dismisses the E.D. La. action without prejudice |
| 4) Whether the forum non conveniens determination in Texas applies to in rem vs. in personam distinctions | NHC: in rem/in personam differences and Mexico’s lack of in rem remedy make the considerations materially different | Hornbeck: admiralty distinction is immaterial for preclusion; prior forum non conveniens ruling addressed availability/convenience generally | Court: distinction immaterial for preclusion; prior decision that Mexico is more appropriate precludes relitigation here |
Key Cases Cited
- Petroleos Mexicanos Refinacion v. M/T KING A, 554 F.3d 99 (3d Cir.) (LOU is a contract that substitutes for the res and transfers maritime lien)
- L & L Oil Co., Inc. v. M/V REBEL, 96 F.3d 1445 (5th Cir.) (maritime liens and contracts are assignable)
- Ambassador Factors v. Rhein-, Maas-, Und See-Schiffahrtskontor GmbH, 105 F.3d 1397 (11th Cir.) (contracts in maritime context are assignable)
- Continental Grain Co. v. The FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19 (U.S.) (admiralty fiction of vessel as person should not defeat forum convenience analysis)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (U.S.) (forum non conveniens framework and plaintiff cannot defeat dismissal merely by showing less favorable foreign law)
- Villar v. Crowley Maritime Corp., 990 F.2d 1489 (5th Cir.) (plaintiff may not relitigate forum non conveniens unless materially altered facts exist)
- Houston Prof'l Towing Ass'n v. City of Hous., 812 F.3d 443 (5th Cir.) (explaining claim-preclusion and issue-preclusion res judicata doctrines)