Apl Co. Pte. Ltd. v. Secure Freight Systems (usa), Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
APL CO. PTE. LTD.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SECURE FREIGHT SYSTEMS (USA),
INC.,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
LOVELL RECYCLING, LTD.;
ANDPLASTIC TRADE CO., LTD.,
Defendants.
No. 21-55932
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-06473-AB-MRW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andre Birotte, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 14, 2022**
Pasadena, California
FILED
NOV 30 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 5 --

Before: WARDLAW and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,***
District Judge.
APL Co. appeals from the district court’s grant of Secure Freight Systems
Inc.’s (“SFS”) motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. SFS contracted with
APL to have APL carry five loaded shipping containers to Jakarta, Indonesia. The
containers themselves belonged to SFS’s co-defendants, Lovell Recycling, LTD
(“Lovell”), and Andplastic Trade Co. (“Andplastic”). APL timely delivered the
containers to Jakarta, where local authorities seized the containers and their
contents for violating local import regulations. APL brought suit in the Central
District of California against SFS, Lovell, and Andplastic alleging that the
defendants improperly packed the containers and thereby failed to comply with
local law.
SFS moved to dismiss for improper venue and forum non conveniens. The
district court granted the motion based on forum non conveniens, finding that
Singapore, where APL is incorporated and headquartered, was the more
appropriate forum. It dismissed the action, without prejudice.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court’s ruling on
a forum non conveniens motion deserves substantial deference—we may only
*** The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
2

-- 2 of 5 --

reverse it for a clear abuse of discretion. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S.
235, 257 (1981). We affirm.
APL argues to us that the district court abused its discretion by failing to
analyze whether Singapore was an adequate alternative forum. However, APL
conceded in its brief in the district court that Singapore was an adequate alternative
forum. This argument is therefore waived. See Momox-Caselis v. Donohue, 987
F.3d 835, 842 (9th Cir. 2021) (finding that concession of an argument before the
district court waives it on appeal).
APL next argues that the district court abused its discretion in balancing the
forum non conveniens factors. “Ordinarily, a plaintiff’s choice of forum will not
be disturbed unless the ‘private interest’ and the ‘public interest’ factors strongly
favor trial in a foreign country.” Lueck v. Sundstrand Corp., 236 F.3d 1137, 1145
(9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Gulf Oil v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 509 (1947)). The
private interest factors are:
(1) [T]he residence of the parties and the witnesses; (2) the forum's
convenience to the litigants; (3) access to physical evidence and other
sources of proof; (4) whether unwilling witnesses can be compelled to
testify; (5) the cost of bringing witnesses to trial; (6) the enforceability
of the judgment; and (7) all other practical problems that make trial of a
case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.
3

-- 3 of 5 --

Boston Telecomms. Grp., Inc. v. Wood, 588 F.3d 1201, 1206–07 (9th Cir. 2009).
The public interest factors are:
(1) [T]he local interest in the lawsuit[;] (2) the court's familiarity with the
governing law[;] (3) the burden on local courts and juries[;] (4)
congestion in the court[;] and (5) the costs of resolving a dispute
unrelated to a particular forum.
Id. at 1211 (quoting Tuazon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 433 F.3d 1163, 1181
(9th Cir. 2006)).
In this case, almost all of the factors either favor dismissal or are neutral.
Most important, no physical evidence or witnesses are located in the Central
District of California. Nor are any parties currently located in the district. SFS
was previously headquartered in the Central District of California, but it has since
moved its offices to Vancouver, British Columbia. The court and jury would be
required to apply Singaporean law. The cost of litigating in the Central District of
California would be great, given that no party resides in the district and all
evidence and witnesses would need to be transported there. The only present
connection to the chosen forum is that the contract was originally entered in the
Central District of California. Finally, the interest of the Central District of
California in hearing this case is slight compared to “the time and resources the
district court . . . would expend if it were to retain jurisdiction.” Lueck, 236 F.3d at
4

-- 4 of 5 --

1147. We therefore hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
dismissing the case for forum non conveniens.
AFFIRMED.
5

-- 5 of 5 --