Amicus Curiae Brief — Arkon Shipping Agency, Inc. v. Kassapas

’ Supreme Court, U.S,

No. 86-195 FILED

SEP 5 198

JOSEPH F. SPANIOL, JR,

IN THE eat

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1986

ARKON SHIPPING AGENCY, INC., ET AL., kaa

Petitioners,

versus

AMALIA KASSAPAS, ET AL.,

Respondents

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE SUPREME COURT

FOR THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

BRIEF OF INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING FEDERATION AND

INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF SHIPPING,

AS AMICI CURIAE

J. DWIGHT LEBLANC, JR.

Counsel of Record

KENNETH J. SERVAY

Chaffe, McCall, Phillips,

Toler & Sarpy

1500 First NBC Building

New Orleans, Louisiana 70112

Telephone: (504) 568-1320

ATTORNEYS FOR AMICI

CURIAE, INTERNATIONAL

SHIPPING FEDERATION and

INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER

OF SHIPPING

-

ee

WS

‘“

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Es 5S Crt hak Mk wee eae ow ees i

BO A, re ee re er a ee ili

I. Interest of the International Shipping Federa-

tion and the International Chamber of Shipping

IOS Cee CCRT OTe CE CT ee 2

II. Factual and Procedural Background.............. 3

ee ere 5

ls a ee ie ie ght te os ke ack Se heck oe & 8 7

A. A writ of certiorari should be granted

because the decision below is inconsistent

with the decision of this Court requiring

uniformity of decision in the maritime

law, regardless whether suit is filed in

ae eee eee eee 7

B. This Court should grant a writ of certiorari

because the Louisiana appellate court’s

decision is inconsistent with federal de-

cisions requiring application of maritime

choice of law and forum non conveniens

principles, even to cases brought “‘at law”

pursuant to the “saving to suitors” clause ..... 9

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

C. A writ of certiorari should be granted

because uniform application of principles

of choice of law and forum non conveniens

in maritime cases is important to interna-

tional maritime commerce

Conclusion

s €¢ 46 2 @ 8 8 © & OS B's

+6 8 @'@@ 6 @ 8 6 > £2 8 #49 8 4 £O SD 68 DEE SS eS eee

Page

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

Cases

Ali v. Offshore Co., 753 F.2d 1327 (Sth Cir. 1985) ...... 9

Amalia Kassapas v. Arkon Shipping Agency, Inc.,

Goo eo.2e see tLe, Ape. Si Cer. 1965) .......62.045. 4

DeMateos v. Texaco, Inc., 562 F.2d 895 (3rd Cir.

EERE SE ee a 11

Fitzgerald vy. Texaco, Inc., 521 F.2d 448 (2d Cir.

ee a Wc bak ols Owe sn ews 10

Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co., Inc., 317 US.

ED eee ee 8, 13

Hapag-Lloyd, A.G. v. Texaco Panama, Inc., 423

eG ky pbs Save reese eenbees 11

Hellenic Lines, Ltd. v. Rhoditis, 398 U.S. 306 (1970) .... 2

Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique,

eke eke k ek wb ev ewes 7,8

Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 571 (1953) ....... 2, 12, 14

Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire, 106 S.Ct.

NS 7

Panama Railroad Co. yv. Johnson, 264 U.S. 375

(1924)

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Continued)

Page

Cases

Pereira v. Utah Transport, Inc., 764 F.2d 686 (9th

ar Ne a ea ya aes Caen eee kee ree ae 1]

Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn, 346 U.S. 406 (1953) .... 7,8

Romero vy. International Terminal Operating Co.,

Fe ae ee ens ns ko ee oe es 10

Sigalas v. Lido Maritime, Inc., 764 F.2d 686 (11th

Cir. 1985), cert. dismissed, 106 S.Ct. 1253, 89

ef 8 kk | PR ereE Perel rr pene is pa rer 11

Vaz Borralho v. Keydril Co., 696 F.2d 379 (Sth

ES os fa he eae eee oa ee ee ee ae 1]

Zouras v. Menelaus Shipping Co., 336 F.2d 209

Se, CE G's So wae wee ek oe ee ee ae eels 10

Statutes

\

ee es xo eo ea kee das eee eee 7

CUE OME Qc ieee 10

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1986

No. 86-195

ARKON SHIPPING AGENCY, INC.

KONKAR SHIPPING AGENCIES, S.A.

AND KONKAR RESOLUTE CORPORATION

Petitioners

versus

AMALIA KASSAPAS, individually and as personal

representative of the estate of Georgios Kassapas,

and as tutrix of the estates of the minor children,

NIKOLAS KASSAPAS and CONSTANTINOS KASSAPAS;

DESPINA KASSAPAS; CONSTANTINOS KASSAPAS;

GEORGIOUS LAMBOJU, individually and as personal

representative of the estate of ANDREAS LAMBOU;

VASILIKI LAMBOU; SOFIA LAMBOU; and

VASILIKI LAMBOU

Respondents

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION

FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI OF AMICI CURIAE,

INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING FEDERATION AND

INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF SHIPPING

The International Shipping Federation (hereinafter “ISF’’)

and the International Chamber of Shipping (hereinafter

“ICS”’) file this brief as amici curiae with the consent of the

parties. 1

1 Letters expressing such consent are on file with the Clerk of Court.

Interest of the International Shipping

Federation and the International Chamber

of Shipping As Amici Curiae

ISF is an international organization, consisting of represen-

tatives from twenty-eight nations, including the United

States. vitally interested in international maritime affairs,

particularly as such affairs relate to shipowners and seamen.

ICS is an organization of national shipowners’ associations

with representatives from thirty-three nations, vitally inter-

ested in the development of maritime statutory and juris-

prudential law.

ISF and ICS have participated in this case as amici curiae

before the Louisiana Supreme Court and before the Louisi-

ana Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit.

Participation by ISF and ICS as amici curiae will assist the

Court, as ISF and ICS, internationa) shipping organizations,

present the views of their members in matters of importance

to the international shipping community.

Presented in this case is the important question whether

a state court, hearing an admiralty and maritime case, is

required to apply the choice of law factors, set forth by this

Court in Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 571 (1953), and

Hellenic Lines, Ltd. v. Rhoditis, 398 U.S. 306 (1970),

together with the doctrine of forum non conveniens as

developed by the maritime law, in determining whether to

maintain jurisdiction over a maritime action involving foreign

parties. This question is of international importance, affec-

ting the rights and liabilities of shipowners world-wide. The

ruling of the Louisiana courts below, refusing to apply the

t

‘

3

maritime doctrine of forum non conveniens, destroys uni-

formity in the maritime law and leaves shipowners subject to

the unfairness of trial in the United States, often under

United States law, as to causes of action having no relation-

ship to the United States, thereby provoking international

conflict.

IFS and ICF adhere to the position set forth by Peti-

tioners, but set forth the following additional considerations

in support of the petition for writ of certiorari.

Il.

Factual and Procedural Background

Decedents, two Greek seamen, served aboard the Greek

flag M/V KONKAR RESOLUTE. The accident giving rise

to their deaths occurred while the vessel was in the Port

of Leningrad, U.S.S.R. The vessel is owned by a Liberian

corporation having its principal place of business in Greece;

all of the shipowning corporation’s officers and directors

are Greek citizens who reside in Greece or Saudi Arabia.

No United States citizen or resident is a shareholder, officer,

or director of the shipowning company. The M/V KONKAR

RESOLUTE is managed by a Panamanian corporation which

maintains its principe: office in Greece. None of the officers,

directors, or shareholders of the managing corporation

are United States citizens or residents. The vessel has a

limited-purpose agent in the United States, which assists

in arranging bunkers and in some charter negotiations;

however, this New York agent has no authority to bind

the owners to charters without specific approval of the

vessel Owner; it has no ownership interests in the vessel.

This case, in and of itself, involves a direct conflict

between the rulings of a state and a federal court, justify-

4

ing the issuance of a writ of certiorari. Plaintiffs, citizens

and residents of Greece (as were the decedents), filed suit

in the United States District Court for the Southern Dis-

trict of New York. That court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims

under the maritime doctrine of forum non conveniens.

Amalia Kassapas v. Arkon Shipping Agency, Inc., No. 82-

6954 (S.D.N.Y. 1984); Petitioners’ Appendix at 14a. The

United States Court of Appeais for the Second Circuit

affirmed. Amalia Kassapas v. Arkon Shipping Agency,

No. 84-7196 (2d Cir. 1984); Petitioners’ Appendix at 19a.

Before the Second Circuit had decided the appeal, plain-

tiffs’ filed suit in the 24th Judicial District Court for the

Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana.

The state district court, following the lead of the federal

courts, ordered dismissa! for forum non conveniens. Amalia

Kassapas v. Arkon Shipping Agency, Inc., No 293-195 (La.

24th J.D.C. 1985); Petitioners’ Appendix at lla. However,

the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, reversed.

Despite the extensive argument presented to that court

by Petitioners and amici curiae concerning the applicability

of the maritime doctrine of forum non conveniens, the

Louisiana Fifth Circuit did not discuss the doctrine; rather,

it held the state district court in error because the Louisiana

Code of Civil Procedure did not recognize the doctrine.

Amalia Kassapas v. Arkon Shipping Agency, Inc., 485 So.2d

565 (La. App. Sth Cir. 1985); Petitioners’ Appendix at 3a.

The Louisiana Supreme Court denied Petitioners’ writ

application without an opinion by a 4-3 vote. 488 So.2d

403 (La. 1986); see Petitioners’ Appendix at la.

Il.

Summary of Argument

The maritime decisions of this Court have stressed the

need for uniformity in decisions, whether a claim is brought

in federai or state court. This Court has held on several

occasions that the rights and liabilities of parties to a mari-

time action are governed by the substantive admiraity and

maritime law, whether plaintiff files suit in federal or state

court. This Court has further stressed that maritime pro-

cedural law applies both in federal court and in state court,

particularly where the procedure affects the substantive

rights of the parties. The decisions of the Louisiana appel-

late court below, refusing to apply established maritime

choice of law and forum non conveniens principles to deter-

mine whether dismissal would be appropriate, is incon-

sistent with the uniformity of decision in maritime cases

that the jurisprudence of this Court has strived to obtain.

This Court should grant a writ of certiorari to resolve the

conflict between the decision of the Louisiana appellate

court and he jurisprudence of this Court, as resolution of

this conflict is important to the uniformity of the maritime

law.

At least one federal court has stated specifically that

maritime forum non coveniens questions are governed

by maritime law, whether plaintiff brings his action “in

admiralty” or “at law.” Consistent with this case, numetr-

ous federal cases have held that Jones Act claims, which

are essentially cases “at law,” are subject to maritime choice

of law and forum non conveniens principles, whether plain-

tiff invokes federal admiralty jurisdiction or brings his

claim “at law.” The decision of the Louisiana appellate

court is inconsistent with this established federal jurispru-

dence; it refuses to apply maritime forum non conveniens

6

principles to a Jones Act claim brought “at law.” This

Court should grant a writ of certiorari to resolve this con-

flict between the decision below and established maritime

jurisprudence.

Also, this Court should grant a writ of certiorari because

the aberration by the Louisiana appellate court from the

established maritime choice of law and forum non conveniens

principles is of the utmost importance to international

shipping and commerce. The ruling of the court below,

if allowed to stand, will subject shipowners to the indi-

vidual laws of each state, rather than to one national uni-

form maritime law, regarding the important questions of

choice of law and forum non conveniens. Thus state courts,

such as the Louisiana appellate court, will be free to ignore

maritime forum non conveniens law, even though a case

(such as this case) may have no rational connection to the

United States. Plaintiffs thereby are encouraged to forum

shop. Shipowners are required to defend suits, at great

expense and inconvenience, and often at the expense of

justice, in jurisdictions with no rational relation to the

dispute in question. Such a result is inconsistent with the

recognition, as a matter of international comity, that other

maritime nations with more relation to the dispute are

better able to resolve the dispute. Also, international comity

is fostered by restricting expansive U.S. doctrines of mari-

time tort liability to cases in which the United States has

some substantial interest. Decisions like the one below

strain international relations and encourage the courts

of other nations to adjudicate American disputes even

when the adjudicating nation has no interest.

The decision below is contrary to uniformity in the

maritime law, international comity, and harmony in inter-

national commerce. This Court should grant a writ of cer-

tiorari to decide the important questions and conflicts

7

raised by the decision of the Louisiana appellate courts

below.

IV.

Argument

A. A Writ of Certiorari Should Be Granted Because the

Decision Below Is Inconsistent With Decisions of This

Court Requiring Uniformity of Decision in the Mari-

time Law, Whether Suit Is Filed in Federal or State

Court

Numerous decisions of this Court have set forth the

principle that admiralty and maritime actions are governed

by the same uniform body of law, whether the action is

filed in federal court under federal admiralty jurisdiction

(28 U.S.C. § 1333), or in federal or state court ‘‘at law’

as preserved by the “Saving to Suitors” clause.2 See, e.g.,

Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallentire, 106 S.Ct. 2485, 91

L.Ed.2d 174 (1986); Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale

Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625 (1959); Pope & Talbot,

Inc. v. Hawn, 346 U.S. 406 (1953). This Court’s decisions

have required federal and state uniformity not only of

2 28 U.S.C. § 1333 provides in pertinent part:

§ 1333. Admiralty, maritime and prize cases.

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction,

exclusive of the courts of the States, of:

(1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime

jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases other reme-

dies to which they are otherwise entitled. (emphasis

supplied)

8

substantive maritime law, but also of maritime procedural

law where it affects the substantive rights of the parties.

See Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co., Inc., 317 U.S. 239

(1942), (maritime rule on the burden of proof governing

the validity of releases preempted state procedural rule on

the subject); Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn, supra, (state

procedural rule of contributory negligence was preempted

by maritime doctrine of comparative negligence); Kermarec

v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, supra, (maritime

law applied in a case brought “‘at law” pursuant to federal

diversity jurisdiction). Thus, in maritime cases, all matters

affecting the rights of the parties are governed by maritime

law, regardless of the court where the action is filed.

The decision of the Louisiana appellate court is incon-

sistent with this uniformity. Although sitting in an admiralty

and maritime matter, it refused to apply well-established

maritime forum non conveniens principles to this case.

This case demonstrates the lack of uniformity resulting

when a state court refuses to abide by established maritime

law. Plaintiffs initially filed their action in federal court

in the Southern District of New York. Under established

maritime choice of law and forum non conveniens princi-

ples, the federal court found that Greek law applied and that

the case had no contacts with the United States. The case

appropriately was dismissed for forum non conveniens.

The same case then was filed in state court in Louisiana,

where the state appellate court reversed the trial court,

holding that the case could not be dismissed; it refused

to consider application of the maritime forum non con-

veniens principles, finding that the Louisiana Code of Civil

Procedure did not recognize the law of forum non con-

veniens. The holding of the Louisiana appellate court,

essentially, is that the maritime law of forum non conveniens

is not binding on state courts hearing an admiralty or mari-

——“ es

9

time case. Thus, the state court placed its own state law

above established admiralty and maritime law.

The conflict and lack of uniformity promoted by the

state court’s decision warrant the issuance of a writ of

certiorari in this case. Under the decision of the Louisiana

court, the question whether a maritime case should be

tried in the United States (and, as in this case, whether a

state court can dimiss a case), and the related question

of what law applies to the case, are subject to varying inter-

pretations of state law in each state jurisdiction, rather than

to the uniform body of rules established by this Court

and the lower federal courts as an integral part of the admir-

alty and maritime law.

This Court should grant the writ of certiorari: to resolve

this important question of maritime law.

B. This Court Should Grant A Writ of Certiorari Because

the Louisiana Appellate Court’s Decision Is Incon-

sistent With Federal Decisions Requiring Application

of Maritime Choice of Law and Forum Non Conveniens

Principles, Even to Cases Brought “At Law” Pursuant

to the “Saving to Suitors’’ Clause

At least one federal court explicitly has recognized that

where federal maritime law governs plaintiff's maritime

action brought “at law” pursuant to the “saving to suitors”

clause, the maritime forum non conveniens principles,

along with maritime substantive law, must be applied by the

court sitting “at law.” Ali v. Offshore Co., 753 F.2d 1327,

1333 n.14 (Sth Cir. 1985). In accordance with Ali, Jones

10

Act cases. which by their very nature are cases “at law,’

consiste**y have been held subject to maritime choice of law

and forum non conveniens principles. E.g., Romero v. [n-

ternational Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354 (1959);

Zouras v. Menelaus Shipping Co., 336 F.2d 209 (ist Cir.

1964), (court held that maritime forum non conveniens

principles apply to Jones Act/general maritime law case,

whether suit was brought on the admiralty or law side of the

court); Fitzgerald v. Texaco, Inc., 521 F.2d 448 (2d Cir.

1975), (maritime choice of law/forum non conveniens

3 This Court has explained that a Jones Act suit, which may be

brought either “in admiralty” or “at law,” when brought “in admir-

alty”’ introduces common law principles into the admiralty action.

Panama Railroad Co. v. Johnson, 264 U.S. 375 (1924). The wording of

the Jones Act also reveals its character as an action “at law.” The Jones

Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688, provides in pertinent part:

(a) Application of railway employee staf-

utes; jurisdiction

Any seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the

course of his employment may, at his election,

maintain an action for damages at law, with the right

of trial by jury, and in such action al! statutes of the

United States modifying or extending the common-

law right or remedy in cases of personal injury to

railway employees shall apply; and in case of death of

any seaman as a result of any such personal injury

the personal representative of such seaman may

maintain an action for damages at law with the right

of trial by jury and in such action all statutes of the

United States conferring or regulating the right of

action for death in the case of railway employees

shall be applicable. Jurisdiction in such actions shall

be under the court of the district in which the defen-

dant employer resides or in which his principal office

is located. (emphasis supplied)

11

principles equally applicable to Jones Act and general mari-

time law actions); DeMateos v. Texaco, Inc., 562 F.2d 895

(3rd Cir. 1977), cert. denied sub non, Hapag-Lloyd, A.G. v.

Texaco Panama, Inc., 423 U.S. 1052 (1976), (maritime

choice of iaw/forum non conveniens principles found appli-

cable to Jones Act/general maritime law case); Vaz Borralho

v. Keydril Co., 696 F.2d 379 (Sth Cir. 1983), (the same

choice of law/forum non conveniens factors apply to Jones

Act claims as to a claims under the general maritime law);

Pereira v. Utah Transport, Inc., 764 F.2d 686 (9th Cir.

1985}, (maritime choice of law/forum non conveniens

factors applied to plaintiff's cause of action brought under

the Jones Act); Sigalas v. Lido Maritime, Inc., 764 F.2d

686 (11th Cir. 1985), cert. dismissed, 106 S.Ct. 1253, 89

L.Ed.2d 362 (:986), (maritime choice of law/forum non

conveniens principles applied to plaintiff's action, brought

under the Jones Act and the generai maritime law).

The decision of the Louisiana court clearly is in conflict

with this case law. Plaintiffs’ choice in bringing their Jones

Act/general maritime law claims in state court “‘at law” is

no different than if plaintiffs had brought their claims “at

law” in federal court. In either instance, the admiralty and

maritime choice of law and forum non conveniens principles

should apply.

Because the decision of the Louisiana court below is in

conflict with established maritime law, this Court should

grant a writ of certiorari.

12

C. A Writ of Certiorari Should Be Granted Because Uni-

form Application of Principles of Choice of Law and

Forum Non Conveniens in Maritime Cases Is Important

to International Maritime Commerce

Uniform application of choice of law and forum non

conveniens principles is a matter of utmost importance to

maritime commerce and the international maritime com-

munity. This Court has recognized that the nature of the

shipping business involves ships coming into contact with

a multitude of jurisdictions. Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 US.

at 581, 583. It is not in the interest of this nation to require

shipowners to adjudicate causes of action in the United

States where the cause of action has nothing to do with

this country. Should state and local courts not be required

to apply established maritime forum non conveniens princi-

ples, shipowners trading in the United States will be subject

to the unfairness and uncertainty of different state law

standards for determining choice of law and the availability

of forum non conveniens dismissal, thus discouraging mari-

time commerce with the United States.

A shipowner is entitled to have fairly considered, under

a uniform, federally established set of principles what law

should be applied to the case and whether the case should

be tried in the United States. If the Louisiana decision

below is allowed to stand, plaintiffs can avoid the possibility

of a foreign law applying, or of having the case dismissed.

by simply filing suit in a jurisdiction like Louisiana where

the courts would be free to ignore maritime forum non

conveniens principles. Thus, shipowners are subject to the

burden and expense of defending claims in the United States,

like those involved in this litigation, which have nothing at

all to do with the United States, and which clearly should

be dismissed. The result is that shipowners are denied in

state court the rights which federal maritime law has estab-

lished in their favor.

13

This Court, in Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co., Inc.,

317 U.S. 239 (1942), held that such inconsistencies could

not be tolerated:

if by its practice the state court were permit-

ted substantially to alter the rights of either

litigant, as those rights were established in

federal law, the remedy afforded by the state

would not enforce, but would actually deny,

federal rights which Congress, by providing

alternative remedies, intended to make not

less, but more secure. The constant objective

of legislation and jurisprudence is to assure

litigants full protection for all substantive

rights intended to be afforded them by the

jurisdiction in which the right itself originates.

Not so long ago we sought to achieve this

result with respect to enforcement in the

federal courts of rights created or governed

by state law. And admiralty courts, when

invoked to protect rights rooted in state law,

endeavor to determine the issues in accord-

ance with the substantive law of the State.

So here, in trying this case the state court was

bound to proceed in such a manner that all

the substantial rights of the parties under con-

trolling federal law would be protected.

Id. , 317 U.S. at 245 (footnotes omitted).

The ruling of the Louisiana courts below fosters the injus-

tice that this Court condemned in Garrett. Plaintiffs are given

license, and, in fact, are invited to forum shop, while defen-

dants are denied the benefit of the forum non conveniens

principles established by the maritime law to guard against

such forum shopping.

14

International considerations, such as promoting uniformity

in the maritime decisional process in state and federal court,

and, as a matter of international comity, iimiting application

of expansive concepts of American personal injury liability to

those cases truly having substantial connections with the

United States, are adversely affected by the ruling below.

Recognition that the individual maritime nations of the

world are competent to regulate their own shipping activities

is important to international maritime harmony. The decision

by the Louisiana appellate court below is inconsistent with

that recognition.

Finally, the ruling below invites retaliation by the courts

of other nations. This court stated in Lauritzen v. Larsen:

It would not be candid to claim that our

courts have arrived at satisfactory standards

or apply those that they profess with perfect

consistency. But in dealing with international

commerce we cannot be unmindful of the

necessity for mutual forbearance if retalia-

tions are to be avoided; nor should we forget

that any contact which we hold sufficient to

warrant application of our law to a foreign

transaction will logically be as strong a war-

rant for a foreign country to apply its law to

an American transaction.

Id. , 345 U.S. at 582.

This Court should grant a writ of certiorari because the

Louisiana appellate court and the Louisiana Supreme Court

ignored established maritime law designed to promote deci-

sion by United States courts of actions having a rational

relation to the United States, while discouraging the prosecu-

tion of actions in the United States which have no such

15

rational relation. Refusal to grant a writ in this case, it is

submitted, can only promote international disharmony

which the maritime case law of this Court has strived to

avoid.

CONCLUSION

Questions of what law should apply to an international

maritime dispute, and where the dispute should be resolved

are not questions which should be subject to the laws of each

individual state of the United States. The question presented

by this case has far-reaching importance to international

commerce and the uniformity of admiralty and maritime

iaw. This Court and the lower federal courts have labored to

establish uniform principles of choice of law and forum non

conveniens which apply to all cases maritime in nature,

whether the case is brought under federal admiralty jurisdic-

tion, federal jurisdiction “at law,” or state jurisdiction “at

law.” The decision by the Louisiana appellate court ignores

this uniform law and fosters forum shopping and internation-

al discord.

The International Shipping Federation and the Inter-

national Chamber of Shipping submit that the questions

presented by Petitioners’ writ application are of the utmost

importance to international commerce and the international

16

shipping community; as amici curiae, they urge the Court

to grant a writ of certiorari in this case.

Respectfully submitted,

yj Duseg he Le Boric

Seda *s bs

J. face Sasa

Counsel of Record

KENNETH J. SERVAY

of

CHAFFE, McCALL, PHILLIPS,

TOLER & SARPY

1500 First NBC Building

New Orleans, Louisiana 70112

Telephone: (504) 568-1320

ATTORNEYS FOR AMICI CURIAE,

INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING FEDERATION

and

INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF SHIPPING

17

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Undersigned counsel hereby certify that a copy of the

above and foregoing Brief on behalf of Amici Curiae, Inter-

national Shipping Federation and International Chamber of

Shipping has been served upon counsel of record for Petition-

ers, Robert P. McGleskey, Jr., Esquire and Gerard T. Gelpi,

Esquire of Gelpi, Sullivan, Carroll & LaBorde, 430 Notre

Dame, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130, and upon counsel of

record for Respondents, Paul H. Due’, Esquire of Due’,

Anderson & Adams, 5555 Hilton Avenue, Sth Floor, Baton

Rouge, Louisiana 70808, by depositing same in the United

States mail, first-class postage affixed, on this 5th day of

September, 1986.

CHAFFE, MC CALL, PHILLIPS,

TOLER & SARPY

Kenneth J. Servay