1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. B.R.
  4. 80 B.R.
  5. 80 B.R. 181 (1987)
 

SEAWINDS LTD. v. NEDLLOYD LINES, B.V.

No. C-86-2409 DLJ.

80 B.R. 181 (1987)

SEAWINDS LIMITED, Plaintiff, v. NEDLLOYD LINES, B.V.; Royal Nedlloyd Group, N.V.; KNSM Lines, B.V.; American President Companies, Ltd.; American President Lines, Ltd.; Sea-Land Corporation; Sea-Land Service, Inc.; Dampskibsselskabet AF 1912 A/S; A/S Dampskibsselskabet Svenborg; A.P. Moller-Maersk Line; HapagLloyd Aktingesellschaft; and Intercontinental Transport (ICT) B.V., Defendants.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

June 24, 1987.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Thomas R. Fahrner, of Furth, Fahrner, Bluemle & Mason, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff.

M. Laurence Popofsky, Peter A. Wald, and Andrea G. Asaro, of Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe, and Charles S. Donovan, of Walsh, Donovan, Lindh & Keech, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants Nedlloyd Lines, B.V., Royal Nedlloyd Group, N.V., and KNSM Lines, B.V.

John F. McLean, of Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro of San Francisco, Cal., for defendants American President Companies, Ltd. and American President Lines, Ltd.

Terry M. Gordon, of Lasky, Haas, Cohler & Munter, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants Sea-Land Corp. and Sea-Land Service, Inc.

Marc J. Fink, of Dow, Lohnes & Albertson, Washington, D.C., and Gary S. Anderson, of Farella, Braun & Martel, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants Dampskibsselskabet AF 1912 A/S, A/S Dampskibsselskabet Svenborg, A.P. Moller-Maersk Line, and Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft.

Nathan Lane III, of Graham & James, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant Intercontinental Transport (ICT) B.V.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

JENSEN, District Judge.

On November 5, 1986 this Court heard oral argument on defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) & (6). All parties appeared through their respective counsel. Because the motion raises a question of first impression—application of section...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases