eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 1988-05

seawinds-ltd-v-nedlloyd-lines-b-v-royal-nedlloyd-group-n-v-knsm , 846 F.2d 586 ( 1988 )


Menu:

  • 846 F.2d 586

    1988 A.M.C. 2704

    SEAWINDS, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant,
    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 Svendborg; A.P. Moller-Maersk Line;
    Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft; Intercontinental Transport
    (ICT) B.V., Defendants-Appellees.

    No. 87-2363.

    United States Court of Appeals,
    Ninth Circuit.

    Argued and Submitted April 14, 1988.
    Decided May 16, 1988.

    Thomas R. Fahrner, Michele C. Jackson, Michael R. Hudson (Furth, Fahrner, Bluemle & Mason), San Francisco, Cal., for Seawinds, Ltd.

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

    William I. Edlund, Walter R. Allan, John F. McLean (Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro), San Francisco, Cal., for American President Companies, Ltd. and American President Lines, Ltd.

    Terry M. Gordon (Lasky, Haas, Cohler & Munter), San Francisco, Cal., and Robert S. Zuckerman, for Sea-Land Service, Inc.

    Stanley O. Sher, Marc J. Fink, Kelly A. Knight (Dow, Lohnes & Albertson), Washington, D.C., and Gary S. Anderson (Farella, Braun & Martel), San Francisco, Cal., for A.P. Moller-Maersk Line, Hapag-Lloyd A.G., Dampskibsselskabet AF 1912 A/S and A/S Dampskibsselskabet Svenborg.

    Nathan Lane III, Ralph M. Pais, James B. Nebel (Graham & James), San Francisco, Cal., for Intercontinental Transport (ICT) B.V.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

    Before GOODWIN, SCHROEDER and POOLE, Circuit Judges.

    ORDER

    1

    The judgment of the district court is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in its opinion. See Seawinds Ltd. v. Nedlloyd Lines, B.V., 80 B.R. 181 (N.D.Cal.1987).