Holland America Line Inc v. Wärtsilä North America, Inc.

Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge BETTY B. FLETCHER.

At the heart of this tangled jurisdictional dispute is a simple but unfortunate accident. In 2002, the Wind Song, a Bahamian cruise ship, was sailing from Papeete, Tahiti, to Huahine, Tahiti. A fire broke out during the voyage, and it eventually spread through the ship, destroying the ship entirely. Holland America Cruise Line (“Holland America”) and Windstar Sail Cruises (“Windstar”) seek to hold defendants Bureau Veritas S.A. (“Bureau Veritas”), Bureau Veritas North America, Inc. (“BVNA”), Bureau Veritas (Canada) Inc. (“BV Canada”), Wartsila Corporation (“Wartsila”), and Wartsila Finland Oy (“Wartsila Finland”), among others, liable for the loss of the Wind Song. Before the suit can go forward, we must determine *454 whether the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington may exercise jurisdiction over these parties. This interlocutory appeal concerns only that issue. We hold that the Western District of Washington was not the proper forum; we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the Bureau Veritas entities for lack of venue and Wartsila and Wartsila Finland for lack of personal…

concurring and dissenting.

I concur in the judgment and concur in the opinion’s reasoning regarding the *463 Wártsilá entities and the lack of jurisdiction under Holland America’s forum selection clause.

However, I cannot concur in the section of the opinion that affirms dismissal of BVNA and BV Canada on the basis of the forum selection clauses. The record contains no evidence that the contracts containing those clauses, which were signed by Holland America and Bureau Veritas, S.A., governed any work performed by BVNA or BV Canada. Cf. Manetti-Farrow, Inc. v. Gucci America, Inc., 858 F.2d 509 (9th Cir.1988) (applying a forum selection clause to nonsignatories where the claims were intertwined with the contract containing the clause). I respectfully dissent from that section of the opinion.

Nevertheless, the evidence shows a lack of personal jurisdiction (either specific or general) in Washington over either BVNA or BV Canada. Therefore, I concur in the judgment as to BVNA and BV Canada.