# The Rice Corporation v. Grain Board of Iraq

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 2, 2011 · 430 F. App'x 604

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/215902

## Case

- **Full name:** The RICE CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Dba the Rice Company, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. GRAIN BOARD OF IRAQ, an Iraqi State Company; Iraqi Ministry of Trade, an Iraqi State Agency, Defendants—Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 2, 2011
- **Citations:** 430 F. App'x 604
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Kozinski, Smith, Block
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/215902

## Opinion text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 02 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

THE RICE CORPORATION, a Delaware No. 09-17687
corporation, dba The Rice Company,
D.C. No. 2:06-CV-1516-GEB
Plaintiff - Appellant,
MEMORANDUM*
v.

GRAIN BOARD OF IRAQ, an Iraqi state
company; IRAQI MINISTRY OF
TRADE, an Iraqi state agency,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 13, 2011
San Francisco, California

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judge, and BLOCK,
District Judge.**

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Frederic Block, Senior United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
1. Paragraph 18 of the parties’ contract is necessarily mandatory and

exclusive: A dispute that “shall be settled . . . final[ly] and conclusive[ly]” by an

Iraqi court cannot, as a matter of logic, be resolved by any other. Cf. The Bremen

v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 2, 20 (1972).

2. Appellant failed to carry its “heavy burden of showing that trial in

the chosen forum would be so difficult and inconvenient that [it] effectively would

be denied a meaningful day in court.” Pelleport Investors, Inc. v. Budco Quality

Theatres, Inc., 741 F.2d 273, 281 (9th Cir. 1984); see also The Bremen, 407 U.S. at

16 (“[W]here it can be said with reasonable assurance that at the time they entered

the contract, the parties to a freely negotiated private international commercial

agreement contemplated the claimed inconvenience, it is difficult to see why any

such claim of inconvenience should be heard to render the forum clause

unenforceable.”). Even taking the facts in the light most favorable to appellant, see

Murphy v. Schneider Nat’l, Inc., 362 F.3d 1133, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004), we hold that

the district court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing Paragraph 18.

AFFIRMED.

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/215902. Public record. Not legal advice.