Chalos & Co, P.C. Marine Managers, Ltd et al, No. 2:2014cv02441 - Document 35 (E.D. La. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER granting 24 Third party defendant Matthaios Fafalios's MOTION to dismiss defendants Marine Managers, Ltd. and Homeland Maritime, Ltd.'s third party complaint on the basis of forum non conveniens.. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 8/28/15. (jjs)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Chalos & Co, P.C. Marine Managers, Ltd et al Doc. 35 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CHALOS & CO., P.C. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 14-2441 MARINE MANAGERS, LTD., ET AL. SECTION: R(5) ORD ER AN D REASON S Third party defendant Matthaios Fafalios m oves to dism iss defendants Marine Managers, Ltd. and Hom eland Maritim e, Ltd.’s third party com plaint for lack of subject m atter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), and in the alternative, on the basis of forum non conveniens.1 For the following reasons, the Court grants the m otion. I. BACKGROU N D A. Partie s Defendants and third-party plaintiffs Marine Managers, Ltd. (Marine) and Hom eland Maritim e, Ltd. (Hom eland) are foreign corporations organized and existing under the laws of the Marshall Islands.2 At all relevant tim es, Marine and Hom eland m anaged and operated the M/ V TRIDENT NAVIGATOR, a bulk cargo vessel that traveled between international ports.3 1 R. Doc. 24. 2 R. Doc. 20 at 1 ¶ 1. 3 See id. at 3 ¶ 4. Dockets.Justia.com Third-party defendant Matthaios Fafalios is a citizen of Greece, who presently resides in Louisiana.4 On Decem ber 3, 20 13, Marine and Hom eland em ployed Fafalios as Chief Engineer of the M/ V TRIDENT NAVIGATOR.5 Plaintiff Chalos & Co., P.C. (Chalos) is a law firm organized and existing under the laws of New York, with offices in New York, Texas, and Florida.6 Following a United States crim inal investigation into allegations that crew m em bers aboard the M/ V TRIDENT NAVIGATOR illegally discharged oily waste into the ocean, Marine and Hom eland hired Chalos as independent legal counsel for Fafalios. 7 B. Pro ce d u ral Backgro u n d On October 24, 20 14, Chalos filed this breach of contract action against Marine and Hom eland, invoking the Court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.8 Chalos alleges that after signing an engagem ent and retainer agreem ent with the firm in February 20 14, Marine and Hom eland unilaterally declared the agreem ent null and void on J une 17, 20 14.9 Chalos seeks to recover the legal fees, costs, and expenses incurred in connection with the firm ’s representation of Fafalios.10 4 Id. at 1 ¶ 2. 5 R. Doc. 15-1 at 1; R. Doc. 20 at 2 ¶ 4. 6 See R. Doc. 1 at 1. 7 See R. Doc. 20 at 6 ¶ 14. 8 R. Doc. 1. 9 R. Doc. 27 at 5 ¶¶ 15-16. 10 Id. at 7 ¶ 22. 2 On February 2, 20 15, Marine and Hom eland filed a third-party com plaint against Fafalios alleging that he fraudulently induced them to enter the retainer agreem ent with Chalos.11 Marine and Hom eland invoke the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332; adm iralty jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1333; and supplem ental jurisdiction, 18 U.S.C. § 1367. Marine and Hom eland seek to recover approxim ately $ 46,0 0 0 in dam ages for m oney they paid to Chalos before declaring the retainer agreem ent null. In addition, Marine and Hom eland im pleaded Fafalios under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(c) to tender Fafalios directly to Chalos for recovery of all of Chalos’s fees and expenses. Alternatively, Marine and Hom eland im pleaded Fafalios under Rule 14(a) on the ground that Marine and Hom eland would pursue indem nity for any dam ages to Chalos for which Marine and Hom eland m ay be found liable.12 C. Factu al Backgro u n d In Decem ber 20 13, Marine and Hom eland (defendants) hired Fafalios to serve as Chief Engineer for defendants’ vessel, the M/ V TRIDENT NAVIGATOR.13 Defendants’ em ploym ent contract specified that Fafalios’s em ploym ent would last for a term of seven m onths.14 The em ploym ent contract also contains both a choice of law provision, which invokes Greek law, and a forum selection clause, which lim its jurisdiction over disputes related to the em ploym ent contract to the Courts of Piraeus in Greece. The parties’ choice of law provision reads in relevant part: “This Contract (“the Contract”) shall be exclusively 11 R. Doc. 20 . 12 R. Doc. 20 at 10 ¶ 28. 13 R. Doc. 27 at 3 ¶ 9. 14 R. Doc. 15-1 at 2. 3 governed by and construed according to the Greek Laws and the GSCA . . . to the exclusion of any other foreign legislation.”15 The forum selection clause provides in full: This Contract is supplem ented by the Com pany’s Policy and Regulations, Greek Law and the GSCA. Any dispute arising out of the interpretation or the perform ance of this Contract shall be referred to the Courts of Piraeus (Maritim e Division) which are exclusively com petent to hear these disputes applying Greek Law to the exclusion of the Courts of any country or jurisdiction.16 In m id-J anuary 20 14, approxim ately one m onth into Fafalios’s em ploym ent, the United States began investigating the M/ V TRIDENT NAVIGATOR and its crew after the vessel voyaged from Saudi Arabia to New Orleans, Louisiana. The Governm ent suspected that the M/ V TRIDENT NAVIGATOR had illegally discharged “oily waste” in violation of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, 33 U.S.C. § 190 1, et seq.17 At Fafalios’s urging, defendants hired Chalos to be his crim inal defense counsel, and the parties confirm ed Fafalios’s legal representation in a retainer agreem ent executed in full on February 17, 20 14.18 On J une 17, 20 14, defendants notified Chalos that they considered the retainer agreem ent to be null and void and refused to continue to pay Fafalios’s legal fees.19 Chalos continued to represent Fafalios, who proceeded to crim inal trial and was found guilty on 15 R. Doc. 15-1 at 1. 16 R. Doc. 15-1 at 7, cl. 14. 17 R. Doc. 27 at 3-4 ¶ 11. 18 Id. at 5 ¶ 15, 22-24. 19 Id. at 5-6 ¶ 16. 4 Decem ber 16, 20 14.20 Chalos invoiced nearly $ 40 0 ,0 0 0 in legal fees and expenses associated with Fafalios’s representation.21 Defendants argue that their retainer agreem ent with Chalos for Fafalios’s representation is null and that they should not be liable for Fafalios’s legal fees because defendants agreed to the contract in error.22 Defendants’ third-party com plaint alleges that unbeknownst to defendants, on two occasions in Decem ber 20 13, Fafalios, while Chief Engineer of the M/ V TRIDENT NAVIGATOR, instructed certain crew m em bers to illegally discharge oily waste into the ocean.23 Again, unknown to defendants, Fafalios then falsified entries in the M/ V TRIDENT NAVIGATOR’s Oil Record Book to conceal his illegal actions.24 Fafalios also allegedly m ade false statem ents and encouraged other crew m em bers to m ake false statem ents to m em bers of the United States Coast Guard during the Governm ent’s crim inal investigation.25 In addition, defendants assert that Fafalios m isled defendants and their attorneys during the investigation because Fafalios persistently asserted his innocence while knowingly making false statements to defendants and others.26 Relying on Fafalios’s repeated assurances of innocence, defendants agreed to pay for 20 Id. at 6 ¶ 19. 21 Id. at ¶ 17. 22 R. Doc. 7 at 2. 23 R. Doc. 20 at 2-3 ¶¶ 5-6. 24 Id. at 3 ¶ 7. 25 Id. at 4 ¶¶ 9-10 . 26 Id. at 5 ¶ 12. 5 independent legal counsel, Chalos, to represent Fafalios in the Governm ent’s investigation and eventual crim inal proceedings.27 Only after defendants executed Chalos’s retainer agreement did defendants allegedly learn about Fafalios’s misrepresentations. The Government disclosed to defendants certain physical evidence that contradicted Fafalios’s prior statem ents. In addition, other crew m em bers recanted their statem ents and notified defendants that those false statem ents were m ade at Fafalios’s urging.28 On J une 17, 20 14, defendants notified Chalos that they considered the retainer agreem ent null and that they would not be responsible for any legal fees incurred on Fafalios’s behalf. At that tim e, defendants had already paid Chalos approxim ately $ 46,0 0 0 .29 Fafalios, as third-party defendant, now m oves to dism iss defendants’ third-party com plaint for lack of subject m atter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim , and forum non conveniens. The Court concludes that defendants’ third-party com plaint should be dism issed for forum non conveniens. Accordingly, the Court will not address Fafalios’s other grounds for dism issal. II. LEGAL STAN D ARD The doctrine of forum non conveniens allows a court to decline jurisdiction and dism iss a case, even when the case is properly before the court, if it m ay be m ore conveniently tried in another forum . In re Volksw agen of Am ., Inc., 545 F.3d 30 4, 313 (5th 27 Id. at 6 ¶ 14. 28 Id. at 7-8 ¶¶ 18-19. 29 Id. at 8 ¶¶ 20 -21. 6 Cir. 20 0 8). The doctrine “rests upon a court's inherent power to control the parties and the cases before it and to prevent its process from becom ing an instrum ent of abuse or injustice.” In re Air Crash Disaster Near New Orleans v. Pan Am . W orld Airw ay s, Inc., 821 F.2d 1147, 1153-54 (5th Cir. 1987) (en banc), vacated on other grounds sub nom ., Pan Am . W orld Airw ay s, Inc. v. Lopez, 490 U.S. 10 32 (1989), opinion reinstated on other grounds, 883 F.2d 17 (5th Cir. 1989) (en banc). The doctrine allows the court to dism iss a case because the plaintiff’s chosen forum is “so com pletely inappropriate and inconvenient that it is better to stop the litigation in the place where brought and let it start all over again som ewhere else.” In re Volksw agen, 545 F.3d at 313 n.8 (quoting Norw ood v. Kirkpatrick, 349 U.S. 29, 31 (1955)). Because the doctrine “not only denies the plaintiff the generally accorded privilege of bringing an action where he chooses, but m akes it possible for him to lose out com pletely,” it is subject to “careful lim itation.” Id. In analyzing whether a case should be dism issed for forum non conveniens, the Court m ust first determ ine whether an adequate alternative forum exists. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Rey no, 454 U.S. 235, 254 n.22 (1981); DTEX, LLC v. BBVA Bancom er, S.A., 50 8 F.3d 785, 794 (5th Cir. 20 0 7). The alternative forum m ust be both available and adequate. See Alpine View Co. Ltd. v. Atlas Copco AB, 20 5 F.3d 20 8, 221 (5th Cir. 20 0 0 ). A forum is available if “the entire case and all parties can com e within the jurisdiction of that forum .” Gonzalez v. Chry sler Corp., 30 1 F.3d 377, 379 (5th Cir. 20 0 2) (citing In re Air Crash Disaster, 821 F.2d at 1165). A forum is adequate if the parties will not be deprived of all rem edies or treated unfairly. See Alpine View , 20 5 F.3d at 221. If the defendant shows that an adequate alternative forum exists, the court m ust then consider whether certain private and public interest factors weigh in favor of dism issal. Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 257; 7 McLennan v. Am . Eurocopter Corp., Inc., 245 F.3d 40 3, 424 (5th Cir.20 0 1). The defendant bears the burden of persuading the court that a lawsuit should be dism issed on forum non conveniens grounds. DTEX, 50 8 F.3d at 794. The existence of a contractual forum selection clause im poses a heavy burden on the party resisting dism issal. See Carnival Cruise Lines, 499 U.S. 585, 586 (1991). Forum selection clauses are prim a facie valid and should be enforced unless the non-m oving party can show that enforcem ent would be unreasonable or unjust under the circum stances. M/ S BREMEN v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 40 7 U.S. 1, 16-17 (1972). Unreasonableness m ay exist when (1) the incorporation of the forum selection clause into the parties’ contract was a result of fraud or overreaching; (2) the party seeking to escape enforcem ent of the forum selection clause “will . . . be deprived of his day in court” because of grave inconvenience or unfairness of the selected forum ; (3) the fundam ental unfairness of the chosen law will deprive the plaintiff of a rem edy; and/ or (4) enforcem ent of the forum selection clause would contravene a strong public policy of the forum state. Hay nsw orth v. The Corp., 121 F.3d 956, 963 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing Carnival Cruise Lines, 499 U.S. 585, 595 (1991); Brem en, 40 7 U.S. at 12-13, 15, 18). III. D ISCU SSION The sole basis on which Fafalios argues defendants’ claim should be dism issed for forum non conveniens is the applicability of the forum selection clause in the em ploym ent contract between defendants and Fafalios. Atl. Marine Constr. Co., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court for the W . Dist. of Tex., 134 S. Ct. 568, 580 (20 13) (“[T]he appropriate way to enforce a 8 forum -selection clause pointing to a state or foreign forum is through the doctrine of forum non conveniens.”). “[A] valid forum -selection clause [should be] given controlling weight in all but the m ost exceptional cases.” Id. at 581 (quoting Stew art Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 33 (1988) (Kennedy, J ., concurring)). Neither defendants nor Fafalios dispute the validity of the forum selection clause in the em ploym ent contract.30 Nor do defendants show that enforcem ent of the clause would be unreasonable or unjust under the circum stances. Instead, defendants argue that the forum selection clause is inapplicable because defendants’ fraud claim against Fafalios arises “com pletely independently” of the parties’ em ploym ent contract.31 Accordingly, the issue before the Court is not whether the forum selection clause is enforceable, but whether it applies to this dispute. A. Ap p licability o f th e Fo ru m Se le ctio n Clau s e Before a court will enforce a forum selection clause, it m ust first determ ine “whether the clause applies to the type of claim s asserted in the lawsuit.” Braspetro Oil Servs. Co. v. Modec (USA), Inc., 240 F. App’x 612, 616 (5th Cir. 20 0 7) (citing Terra Int’l, Inc. v. Miss. Chem . Corp., 119 F.3d 688, 692 (8th Cir. 1997)). The court “m ust look to the language of the parties’ contract[] to determ ine which causes of action are governed by the forum selection clause[].” Id. (quoting Marinechance Shipping, Ltd. v. Sebastian, 143 F.3d 216, 222 (5th Cir. 1998)). “[I]f the substance of the[] claim s, stripped of their labels, does not 30 R. Doc. 29 at 21 (“Defendants do not seek to invalidate that clause, and agree that any dispute arising out of the interpretation or perform ance of Fafalios’ contract . . . should be decided in Greece by the Greek courts.”). 31 R. Doc. 29 at 21-22. 9 fall within the scope of the [forum selection] clause[], the clause[] cannot apply.” Roby v. Corp. of Lloy d’s, 996 F.2d 1353, 1361 (2d Cir. 1993). To determ ine whether a forum selection clause applies to specific tort claim s, the Eighth Circuit has enunciated three general tests: (1) whether the tort claim s “ultim ately depend on the existence of a contractual relationship between the parties”; (2) whether resolution of the tort claim s “relates to the interpretation of the contract”; and (3) whether the tort claim s “involve the sam e operative facts as a parallel claim for breach of contract.” Terra Int’l, 119 F.3d at 694; see also Manetti-Farrow , Inc. v. Gucci Am ., Inc., 858 F.2d 50 9, 514 (9th Cir. 1988) (applying the “relates to interpretation of the contract” test); Gullion v. JLG Serviceplus, Inc., No. H-0 6-10 15, 20 0 7 WL 294174, at *5 (S.D. Tex. J an. 29, 20 0 7) (relying on Terra Int’l). Here, the forum selection clause states, “Any dispute arising out of the interpretation or the perform ance of this Contract shall be referred to the Courts of Piraeus (Maritim e Division) which are exclusively com petent to hear these disputes applying Greek Law to the exclusion of the Courts of any country or jurisdiction.”32 The operative language is “[a]ny dispute arising out of the interpretation or the perform ance of this Contract.” As a general rule, courts read forum selection clauses broadly, “in keeping with the public policy favoring their use.” Paduano v. Express Scripts, Inc., 55 F. Supp. 3d 40 0 , 432 (E.D.N.Y. 20 14) (collecting cases). For exam ple, courts have held that “the language ‘arising out of’ is broad in scope and reaches all disputes that have their origin in the em ploym ent contract, regardless of whether the dispute involves interpretation or 32 R. Doc. 15-1 at 7, cl. 14. 10 perform ance of the contract per se.” Marzano v. Proficio Mortg. Ventures, LLC, 942 F. Supp. 2d 781, 789 (N.D. Ill. 20 13) (collecting cases); 33 see also TradeCom et.com LLC v. Google, Inc., 435 F. App’x 31, 35 (2d Cir. 20 11) (interpreting a forum selection clause that reads, “arising out of or relating to this agreem ent or the Google Program (s),” broadly to encom pass plaintiff’s claim ); Coors Brew ing Co. v. Molson Brew eries, 51 F.3d 1511, 1515 (10 th Cir. 1995) (holding that “arising in connection with the im plem entation, interpretation or enforcem ent” was broad language). Sim ilarly, courts hold that the use of phrases like “arising out of” should be read broadly to encom pass both contractual and tort claim s. See, e.g., Paduano, 55 F. Supp. 3d at 432 (“[W]hen ‘arising out of,’ ‘relating to,’ or sim ilar language appears in a forum selection clause, “such language is regularly construed to encom pass securities, antitrust, and tort claim s associated with the underlying contract.”); see also Roby , 996 F.2d at 1361 (holding that there is “no substantive difference . . . between the phrases ‘relating to,’ ‘in connection with’ or ‘arising from ,’ and that such language should be broadly read to include tort actions). Courts also find phrases like “any dispute” indicative of the broad scope of a forum selection clause or sim ilar contractual provision. See Louis Drey fus Negoce S.A. v. Bly stad Shipping & Trading Inc., 252 F.3d 218, 225 (2d Cir. 20 0 1) (interpreting broadly a clause that stated, “any dispute arising from the m aking, perform ance or term ination of this Charter Party”); Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. 33 The Court notes that som e of the cited cases pertain to the scope and interpretation of arbitration clauses, rather than forum selection clauses. These cases are nonetheless persuasive because “in relevant aspects, there is no difference between the two.” Vim ar Seguros y Reaseguro, S.A. v. M/ V SKY REEFER, 515 U.S. 528, 532 (Stevens, J . dissenting); see also Lim v. Offshore Specialty Fabricators, Inc., 40 4 F.3d 898, 90 1-0 2 (“Therefore, analysis of foreign forum selection clauses can be extended to forum arbitration clauses.”). 11 v. Boston & Me. Corp., 850 F.2d 756, 760 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (explaining that the phrase “[a]ny claim or controversy” is broad in scope). Here, defendants attempt to contrast what they characterize as two separate disputes with Fafalios. In what defendants call the “Retainer Agreem ent Controversy,” the issue is who, if anyone, is liable for the fees and expenses Chalos incurred in representing Fafalios during his crim inal investigation and trial.34 The second dispute, term ed the “Em ploym ent Controversy,” “involves whether Fafalios is liable to Defendants for the damages vicariously inflicted on them when, as an em ployee of Defendants under a Greek seam an’s contract, Fafalios illegally discharged oil into the ocean and falsified records to cover-up his crim e.”35 Defendants point out that “the Em ploym ent Controversy m ust and will be resolved under Greek law, by Greek courts, who alone are em powered to interpret the Fafalios Em ploym ent Contract.”36 The Court concludes that the forum selection clause encom passes defendants’ claim for fraud, which is ultim ately grounded in Fafalios’s conduct as a seam an aboard the M/ V TRIDENT NAVIGATOR. Interpreting the forum selection clause broadly, the Court finds that the language “[a]ny dispute arising out of the interpretation or the perform ance of this Contract” encom passes all disputes that “have their origin in the em ploym ent contract, regardless of whether the dispute involves the interpretation or perform ance of the contract per se.” See Marzano, 942 F. Supp. 2d at 789. 34 R. Doc. 29 at 2. 35 Id. 36 Id. 12 Both the Em ploym ent Controversy and the Retainer Agreem ent Controversy are grounded in Fafalios’s em ploym ent relationship with defendants. “[P]olicies justifying application of forum selection clauses in contract cases are equally applicable to tort causes of action arising out of that contractual relationship.” Knight Oil Tools, Inc. v. Unit Petroleum Co., No. CIV 0 5-0 669 J B/ ACT, 20 0 5 WL 2313715, at *12 (D.N.M. Aug. 31, 20 0 5) (citing Coastal Steel Corp. v. Tilghm an W heelabrator, Ltd., 70 9 F.2d 190 (3d Cir. 1983)). Notably, Fafalios was still em ployed as a seam an at the tim e of the illegal discharge in J anuary 20 14, as well as at the tim e of the alleged fraud in February 20 14.37 Defendants agreed to hire Chalos on Fafalios’s behalf while they internally investigated their own vessel and crew to determ ine whether any im proper or illegal activity occurred. There are no facts that would indicate that at this tim e, defendants no longer considered Fafalios to be their em ployee. Accordingly, the m aterial facts surrounding the “Retainer Agreem ent Controversy” arose during the course of Fafalios’s em ploym ent. More im portantly, defendants’ tort claim “involve[s] the sam e operative facts as a parallel claim for breach of contract.” See, e.g., Terra Int’l, 119 F.3d at 694; ManettiFarrow , 858 F. 2d at 514. In defendants’ own words, the Em ploym ent Controversy “involves whether Fafalios is liable to Defendants for the dam ages vicariously inflicted on them when, as an em ployee of Defendants under a Greek seam an’s contract, Fafalios illegally discharged oil into the ocean and falsified records to cover-up his crim e.” To prevail on the Retainer Agreem ent Controversy, defendants must prove that Fafalios falsely proclaim ed his innocence, which m eans defendants m ust first prove that Fafalios actually 37 See R. Doc. 15-1 at 2 (specifying that Fafalios’s em ploym ent, which began in Decem ber 20 14, would continue for a period of seven m onths). 13 discharged the oil illegally and falsified records to conceal his actions. In other words, to show that Fafalios m isrepresented his innocence, defendants have to prove the sam e conduct that breached the em ploym ent contract. That defendants m ust also show that Fafalios falsely proclaim ed his innocence does not change the result. Therefore, defendants’ fraud claim rests on the sam e m aterial facts as any potential parallel breach of contract action, which defendants freely adm it m ust be litigated in Greece. “[C]laim s involving the sam e operative facts as a claim for breach of contract that is subject to a forum selection clause should also be litigated in the forum chosen by the parties.” Rivera v. Centro Medico de Turabo, Inc., 575 F.3d 10 , 24 (1st Cir. 20 0 9) (internal citations om itted). Finally, in support of his m otion to dism iss for forum non conveniens, Fafalios argues that defendants’ claim to indem nity for any liability on Chalos’s retainer agreem ent m ust arise out of the perform ance of the em ploym ent contract because the contract contains an indem nity provision.38 The provision on which Fafalios relies states in full: “The seam an hereby agrees and hereby gives irrevocable order to the Com pany to withhold from his wages, any am ount for covering/ indem nifying the Com pany for any potential dam age suffered by the Com pany through his illegal acts or om issions.”39 In opposition, defendants fail to address specifically Fafalios’s claim that the indem nity provision in the em ploym ent contract m ust apply. Because the Courts of Piraeus m aintain exclusive jurisdiction over the em ploym ent contract, whether this indem nity provision does in fact apply to defendants’ claim of indem nity on the basis of Fafalios’s fraud is a m atter of contractual interpretation that the em ploym ent contract vests in the Greek courts. Any 38 R. Doc. 24-1 at 18. 39 R. Doc. 15-1 at 6, cl. 11(e). 14 attem pt to determ ine whether Fafalios’s indem nity argum ent has m erit would violate the plain language of the forum selection clause. In sum , the Court finds that the forum selection clause in the parties’ em ploym ent contract applies to this dispute. Because the Court finds that the forum selection clause applies, defendants, as the parties resisting enforcem ent, bear the burden to show that enforcem ent would be unreasonable or unjust under the circum stances. Brem en, 40 7 U.S. at 16-17; Hay nsw orth, 121 F.3d at 963. Defendants have m ade no attem pt to show that enforcem ent of the forum selection clause would be unreasonable here. Therefore, this dispute m ust be litigated in Greece. B. Effe ct o f Ru le 14 ( c) Im p le ad e r In addition to suing Fafalios for dam ages, defendants seek to tender him as a defendant to Chalos under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(c). Under Rule 14(c), “the third-party plaintiff m ay dem and judgm ent in the plaintiff’s favor against the third-party defendant [and] the action proceeds as if the plaintiff had sued both the third-party defendant and the third-party plaintiff.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 14(c)(2). Defendants argue that because Rule 14(c) requires the plaintiff to proceed directly against the third party, Fafalios cannot rely on the forum selection clause to achieve dism issal. Even if defendants are correct, the Court finds that their attem pt to im plead Fafalios under Rule 14(c) is im proper. Rule 14(c) provides in relevant part: If a plaintiff asserts an adm iralty or m aritim e claim under Rule 9(h), the defendant . . . m ay, as a third-party plaintiff, bring in a third-party defendant who m ay be wholly or partly liable--either to the plaintiff or to the third-party plaintiff--for rem edy over, contribution, or otherwise on account of the sam e transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences. 15 Rule 14(c)(1). By its plain language, Rule 14(c) requires that the original plaintiff m ust have asserted an adm iralty or m aritim e claim under Rule 9(h). See Luera v. M/ V ALBERTA, 635 F.3d 181, 187 (5th Cir. 20 11) (noting Rule 14(c) im pleader was available because the plaintiff’s original claim was in adm iralty); Harrison v. Glendel Drilling Co., 679 F. Supp. 1413, 1417 (W.D. La. 1988) (holding Rule 14(c) “has no application” where the original plaintiff did not bring his claim under the court’s adm iralty jurisdiction even though the defendants’ third-party claim s arose under m aritim e law). In addition, the Fifth Circuit requires that the third-party plaintiff’s claim also arise under adm iralty or m aritim e law. Am braco, Inc. v. Bossclip B.V., 570 F.3d 233, 243 (5th Cir. 20 0 9) (“In addition, the Rule requires the third-party plaintiff . . . to assert an action sounding [in] adm iralty or m aritim e . . . .”). Here, Chalos’s state-law breach of contract claim does not arise under adm iralty or m aritim e law. Therefore, defendants’ im pleader is not proper under Rule 14(c). IV. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS third-party defendant Matthaios Fafalios’s Motion to Dism iss for Forum Non Conveniens. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ _28th _ _ day of August, 20 15. ___ ___________________________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 16
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
