M&z Trading Corp. v. Hecny Group

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant M&Z Trading Corp. (“M&Z”) appeals a judgment in favor of defendants Cargolift Ltd., Hecny Group and Hecny Transportation Inc. (collectively “Cargolift”) on M&Z’s claim that Cargolift was liable for the loss of M&Z’s cargo. Cargolift entered into a contract with M&Z to ship M&Z’s cargo, consisting of two containers of ginseng ethyl alcohol composition. The Latvian authorities seized the cargo as contraband, while it was en route to Russia.

The district court made findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(c) that Cargolift successfully established lack of liability for the loss of M&Z’s cargo under the “Restraint of *143 Princes” 1 defense provided for in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (“COGSA”), 46 App.U.S.C. § 1304(2)(g). As the parties are otherwise familiar with the facts, we need not repeat them here.

We review findings of fact of a trial court, sitting in admiralty, for clear error. Evanow v. M/V Neptune, 163 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir.1998). The district court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Mateo v. M/S KISO, 41 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir.1994). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we…

dissenting.

First, while it is, no doubt, true that documents must be authenticated and must be reliably translated, there was little opportunity to satisfy the district court’s arbitrary demands in that regard. The district court sprung a wholly fictitious requirement on M&Z in the midst of trial on November 8, 2000, and then granted judgment against M&Z on a motion for directed verdict under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c) at a 9:25 a.m. hearing the next morning. I do not think that the absence of the documents makes much difference or that their presence would have affected the district court’s decision, but I am convinced that the district court did err in this respect.

Second, I agree that the restraint-of-princes defense is generally available, and would have been available here if not given up by Cargolift. But, the parol evidence, which to my mind was admissible, 1 did tend to show that Cargolift agreed to assume all responsibility for getting the goods through Latvia safely. Despite M&Z’s misgivings, Cargolift insisted that it could safely negotiate the Latvian system.

Then Cargolift commenced attempts to escape from its assurances, but M&Z rejected Cargolift’s…