finding that “admiralty jurisdiction over claims by Singapore plaintiffs on an alleged tort in Singapore” is “undoubted”
How later courts described this case
- finding that “admiralty jurisdiction over claims by Singapore plaintiffs on an alleged tort in Singapore” is “undoubted”
- decision reversed on other grounds
- "drawing conclusions from metaphors is dangerous"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
REAVLEY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
It is for the Texas court to decide its own forum convenience and to identify the issues subsidiary to that determination. Texas law may permit the Choo case to be entertained without regard to any issue resolved by the federal court. This court is not entitled to say otherwise, though my colleagues do just that.
Contrary to what Chief Judge Clark says, Choo has not violated a final, binding order of the federal court. The court merely dismissed her case, without prejudice, for forum non conveniens reasons. The court did not adjudicate Choo’s right to bring her action in Texas state courts.
The majority are prepared to announce a bold new rule of preemption and to nullify the Texas open forum law for admiralty cases. If that be good law, this is not the *326 time or place to declare it. I would prefer that the Texas courts decide Texas law, and that another court, preferably the Supreme Court, after full consideration, decide whether to sweep so far.
The Court tells us that “[a]ny doubts as to the propriety of a federal injunction against state court proceedings should be resolved in favor of permitting the state courts to proceed in an orderly fashion to finally determine the controversy.” Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 398 U.S. 281, 297 , 90 S.Ct. 1739, 1748 , 26 L.Ed.2d 246 (1970). My colleagues fail to heed. I dissent.