The opinion of the court was delivered by: DIMOCK
Respondents have excepted to libelants' amended libel. Libelants are nine alien seamen who were employed on the SS Argovan, a Canadian flag vessel, owned and operated by respondent Argonaut Navigation Company, Ltd., a Canadian corporation. The amended libel alleges that these seamen were falsely imprisoned when the vessel reached Adelaide, Australia, and that this imprisonment was caused by officers and men employed by respondents. Argonaut Trading Agency, Inc., a New York agent for Argonaut Navigation Company, Ltd., is joined as a respondent.
Three of the exceptions are made by both respondents. They are (a) failure to state sufficient allegations to constitute a cause of action, (b) lack of admiralty jurisdiction over the alleged tort, and (c) forum non conveniens. In addition Argonaut Trading Agency, Inc. excepts on the ground that it is not a proper party and Argonaut Navigation Company, Ltd., excepts on the ground of laches. I shall discuss there exceptions in that order.
(a) Failure to state sufficient allegations to constitute a cause of action:
The libel, in substance, alleges that libelants were wrongfully imprisoned in Australia and that this wrongful imprisonment was caused by respondents and their employees. For the purpose of this exception, all these allegations must be deemed true. Respondents correctly contend that there is no allegation that the imprisonment was unlawful or without legal authority. But specific words are not required; libelants' allegation that the imprisonment was 'wrongful' suffices. Therefore, a cause of action for false imprisonment is stated.
(b) Lack of admiralty jurisdiction over the alleged tort:
Respondents argue that admiralty has jurisdiction only of torts committed on navigable waters or, at the very least, on board a vessel. Since the libel contains no allegation that the imprisonment occurred within these locations, respondents state the libel must be dismissed for lack of admiralty jurisdiction.
There is no doubt that a long line of cases had enunciated this 'physical locality' rule of admiralty jurisdiction. In fact, the last vestige of this rule was recently applied by the Third Circuit in a case involving false imprisonment. Forgione v. United States, 3 Cir., 202 F.2d 249. But the rule has been completely abrogated in this circuit. In Kyriakos v. Goulandris, 2 Cir., 151 F.2d 132, 138, the court faced the issue whether an assault on shore against a member of the crew was justiciable in admiralty. The court quoted the following from O'Donnell v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 318 U.S. 36, 42, 63 S. Ct. 488, 492, 87 L. Ed. 596:
'The admiralty jurisdiction over the suit depends not on the place where the injury is inflicted but on the nature of the service and its relationship to the operation of the vessel plying in navigable waters.'
Holding this determinative of the question, the court stated 'it made no difference that libelant was at the time on shore.' See also Strika v. Netherlands Ministry of Traffic, 2 Cir., 185 F.2d 555.
Libelants allege that the false imprisonment arose out of a disagreement relating to conditions on board the vessel. Taking this allegation as true, the alleged tort would have a direct relationship to the operation of the vessel. Admiralty therefore has jurisdiction.
(c) Forum non conveniens:
An admiralty court has discretion to refuse to take jurisdiction over a controversy between aliens where the tort was committed abroad. Respondents ask that I exercise this discretion and dismiss the libel.
The Supreme Court has stated that this discretion may only be exercised where 'justice would be done as well by remitting the parties to the home forum.' Charter Shipping Co., Ltd., v. Bowring, Jones & Tidy, Ltd., 281 U.S. 515, 518, 50 S. Ct. 400, 401, 74 L. Ed. 1008. That is not the case here, for respondents also aver that the statute of limitations would preclude suit in other available forums. Certainly ...