In re Energetic Tank, Inc.

1

In the Matter of the Complaint of ENERGETIC TANK, INC., as Owner of the M/V ALNIC MC, for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability

No. 18-CV-1359 (LAP)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

October 9, 2024

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LORETTA A. PRESKA, Senior United States District Judge:

The wrongful death claimants in the above-captioned case represented by the firm Arnold & Itkin, LLP (the "AI Claimants") have filed a motion for reconsideration (see dkt. no. 605 ["Motion" or "Mot."]), in which they ask the Court to reconsider its Memorandum and Order, dated August 27, 2024, in which the Court permitted Petitioner Energetic Tank, Inc. to propose before the Phase II trial proceedings jury instructions that include the "Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases" published by Singapore courts (the "Guidelines"), (see dkt. no 602 [the "Opinion"]). Petitioner has filed a memorandum in opposition, (see dkt. no. 611), in response to which the AI Claimants have filed a reply brief (see dkt. no. 617).

The AI Claimants' Motion is denied in part and granted in part. The Court will also offer minor clarification on its prior Opinion.

Before the above-captioned case was reassigned to the undersigned, Judge Crotty ruled that a choice-of-law analysis required that that issues of substantive law, including determinations of liability and damages, would be decided by Singapore law. In re Energetic Tank, Inc., 18-cv-1359 (PAC), 2020 WL 114517, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2020). After reassignment, this Court held in the Opinion that because (a) calculating damages is a question of substantive law in the federal legal system and (b) a jury must be given instructions on the substantive law to be applied to reach its verdict in the Phase II proceedings in the instant litigation, the Guidelines-which serves as a compilation precedent of past damages awards entered in cases the Singapore legal system-"may be used to fashion instructions to the jury in its consideration of the calculation of damages[.]" (Opinion at 11 (emphasis added).)

In so ruling, the Court rejected the argument put forth by several claimants and supported by the AI Claimants that because Singapore courts categorize the damages quantification as procedural, rather than substantive, the Court could not apply Singapore damages law, including the Guidelines. (See id. at 710.) One of several reasons the Court rejected the claimants' argument was that refusing to apply the Guidelines because Singapore courts treat damages as procedural-as claimants proposed-would lead the Court into renvoi, whereby the Court would have to refer back to the law of the forum state and back again to Singapore law. (See id. at 10.)

In their Motion, the AI Claimants correctly note that renvoi arises in situations in which a court's choice-of-law analysis would result in applying a foreign forum's conflicts-of-law rules, thereby creating an endless vicious cycle of applying each forum's conflicts analysis. (See Mot. at 5-7.) The Court acknowledged this point in its Opinion, noting that renvoi is specifically an issue about applying the foreign state's conflicts law and stating that avoiding renvoi required the Court to "'"ignore [the foreign state's] conflicts laws while importing only its local law.'" (Opinion at 10 (quoting Kim v. Co-op. Central Raiffeisen-Boerenleebank B.A., 364 F.Supp.2d 346, 350 n.8 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).) The AI Claimants argue the Court's decision to apply Singapore damages law wrongly rested on avoiding renvoi because the Court would not specifically have to import Singapore's conflicts law. (See Mot. at 6-7.) Although technically true that the Court would not apply Singapore conflicts law, the principle underlying the Court's Opinion remains, because refusing to applying Singapore damages law would similarly lead the Court down a vicious feedback loop between United States federal law and Singapore law.

Specifically, claimants asked the Court not to apply Singapore damages law because, even though damages is a matter of substantive law in the United States, it is procedural in Singapore. Therefore, according to claimants, the Court would impermissibly import foreign procedural law to determine damages. But that logic would lead the Court to a dead end.

Pursuant to Judge Crotty's sound choice-of-law analysis, the substantive law of Singapore applies in the instant case. See In re Energetic Tank, Inc., 2020 WL 114517, at *7. Because damages law is an issue of substantive law here in the federal court system, (see Opinion at 8-9), issues of damages must be determined according to substantive law. Although the Court understands the AI Claimants' argument that it may not apply foreign procedural law in the instant case, refusing to apply Singapore damages law because Singapore courts consider it procedural would lead the Court without any damages law to apply. Determining damages is a matter of substantive law in the forum state. But because the Court may not apply the substantive law of the forum state in the instant case, it may not apply federal damages law. If the Court then could not apply Singapore damages law because it cannot apply Singapore "procedural" law, which forum's law would the Court be left to follow in determining damages? There would be none. That is the vicious cycle the Court sought to avoid when it referenced the doctrine of renvoi in its Opinion. That no claimants ask the Court to apply Singapore's conflicts law is irrelevant.

However the Court...