Thomas Cook; v. CHAMPION SHIPPING AS and CHAMPION TANKERS AS

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THOMAS COOK; et al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
CHAMPION SHIPPING AS and
CHAMPION TANKERS AS,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-16750
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-03605-FCD-
DAD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 14, 2011**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and HUFF, District Judge.***
______________________
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge for the U.S. District Court***
for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
FILED
DEC 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Plaintiffs Jason K. Arnold, Jack L. Durham, John M. Hunter, III, Larz A.1
Stewart, and Elizabeth H. Zeiger have notified the Court that they have reached a
settlement with Defendants on all claims and have filed stipulations to dismiss the
appeal with prejudice. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this appeal as to these
parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) in a separate order.
2
Plaintiff Thomas Cook, an American crew member aboard the wooden
sailing vessel Princess Taiping, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his
diversity and maritime action on the basis of forum non conveniens. Plaintiff1
brought suit against Defendants Champion Shipping AS and Champion Tankers
AS in California, seeking damages for injuries allegedly resulting from a collision
between Champion’s vessel, M/V Champion Express, and Plaintiff’s vessel, the
Taiping, in international waters off the coast of Taiwan.
The district court first found that Hong Kong was an adequate alternative
forum. Lueck v. Sundstrand Corp., 236 F.3d 1137, 1142 (9th Cir. 2001). Next, the
district court reasonably and thoroughly assessed all of the relevant private and
public interest factors. Id. The district court recognized the great deference given
to an American citizen’s choice of forum, see Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454
U.S. 235, 255 (1981), but concluded that the balance of public and private factors
weighed heavily in favor of dismissal. The district court found that material
witnesses and documentary evidence for this dispute are primarily located in
Southeast Asia and that Hong Kong is a centrally-located forum. The district court

-- 2 of 3 --

3
also found that Hong Kong offers a forum in which all claims involving all parties
can be tried in one action.
Upon review, we conclude that the district court did not clearly abuse its
discretion in either determining that Hong Kong is an adequate alternative forum in
which to adjudicate Plaintiff’s claims, or that the balance of private and public
factors favors dismissal. Consequently, we AFFIRM the order of the district court
dismissing this action.

-- 3 of 3 --