Pacific Asian Enterprises, a California corporation; v. Cross Chartering Nv, a foreign limited liability company;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PACIFIC ASIAN ENTERPRISES, a
California corporation; et al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
CROSS CHARTERING NV, a foreign
limited liability company; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-55805
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-01335-LAB-
WVG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 5, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Pacific Asian Enterprises (“PAE”) appeals the district court’s final order
dismissing PAE’s claims and enforcing a contractual forum selection clause
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). We affirm.
FILED
DEC 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it enforced the forum
selection clause. See Kukje Hwajae Ins.Co., Ltd. v. M/V Hyundai Libtery, 408 F.3d
1250, 1254 (9th Cir. 2005). It is clear from the face of the bill of lading that the
parties intended that the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30701,
(“COGSA”) control this contract. Both parties’ experts testified that COGSA
controls the terms of the contract in Antwerp; Cross Chartering has stipulated that
COGSA controls in Antwerp; and the district court reached the same conclusion.
Given that the court in Antwerp will interpret the contract under COGSA, we
conclude that the substantive law the Belgium courts will apply will not be less
favorable to PAE than the U.S. court’s application of COGSA. Fireman's Fund
Ins. Co. v. M.V. DSR Atl., 131 F.3d 1336, 1339 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Vimar
Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A., v. M/V Sky Reefer, 515 U.S. 528, 538 (1995)) (holding
that enforcement of a forum selection clause is unreasonable when “the substantive
law to be applied will reduce the carrier’s obligations to the cargo owner below
what COGSA guarantees”).
Affirmed.

-- 2 of 2 --