MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Diana Rain Steinmetz appeals the summary judgment in favor of the officers involved in her arrest. As they are entitled to qualified immunity, we affirm.
Courts consider two questions in deciding qualified immunity: (1) whether the facts taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting injury show the officer's conducted violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right was clearly established in light of the specific context of the case. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). We believe this case is best resolved by considering step two of the inquiry, that is, whether the right was clearly established. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 129 S.Ct. 808, 812, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009). The dispositive query is "whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted." Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151.
A reasonable officer in Isaak's shoes would not have believed that probable cause to arrest Steinmetz was lacking. See RCW 10.31.100(2)(c). Steinmetz admitted to clawing her husband's neck; Earl called 911; Earl had visible claw marks on his neck; Steinmetz lacked any injury similar to his; and her husband's story was clearer and more consistent than hers. A reasonable officer would not have believed that probable cause was dissipated because Steinmetz wanted an officer to talk to a third-party, who had no percipient knowledge of the incident, over the telephone. Nor would Isaak have been alerted by clearly established law that, given probable cause to believe Steinmetz had assaulted her husband, he was nevertheless obliged to investigate whether an affirmative defense was applicable. See Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023, 1032 (9th Cir. 2003) (arresting officer not required to investigate and determine that an affirmative defense is inapplicable before arresting a person for whom there is otherwise probable cause to arrest). While a reasonable officer would not have relied just on Earl's claim to being the victim of a crime, See Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 925 (9th Cir. 2001), Isaak didn't do this; he interviewed both parties, twice, and considered their relative injuries as well as the coherency of their accounts.
In sum, the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because it would not have been clear to them they lacked probable cause or failed to conduct an adequate investigation.
Given this disposition, we do not need to reach any issue arising out of the Release and Dismissal Agreement.
AFFIRMED.
Because Hong Kong offers a forum in which all claims involving all parties could be tried in one action, the court concludes that this factor also weighs in favor of dismissal.
B. Public Interest Factors
Similar to the private interest factors, the court considers any or all of the public interest factors that are relevant to the dispute and gives appropriate weight to each when arriving at a balanced conclusion. Id. at 1145-46 (citing Piper, 454 U.S. at 255). Of the public interest factors listed above, defendant emphasizes plaintiff's foreign citizenship, California's minimal connection to the events giving rise to this action, the administrative difficulties and jury imposition that this case represents, and the complex choice of law question facing this court should jurisdiction over this action be retained. Defendant contends that Hong Kong's interest in this litigation is stronger than that of California, and that the cost to a California court in hearing this matter will be far greater than the cost to the Hong Kong Admiralty Court.
Given the strained judicial and administrative resources in the Eastern District, California's minimal connection to this litigation, and the complex choice of law issues represented by this case, the court finds the public interest factors weigh in favor of dismissal. See Backcountry Against Dumps v. Abbott, No. CIV S-10-394, 2010 WL 2349194 (E.D. Cal. June 8, 2010) (noting that the Eastern District of California has only seven active judges who maintain a caseload of nearly 1100 cases per judge). The jury in this case will be required to hear testimony from witnesses regarding an alleged collision that took place between two differently flagged vessels in international waters off the coast of Tawian. Plaintiffs have failed to set forth any compelling argument or legal support that this community has a generalized interest in a maritime dispute involving multinational parties in which two Japanese residents voluntarily undertook to join the crew of a Hong Kong vessel undertaking a trans-Pacific voyage. In addition, the ultimate questions to be resolved in this action turn on events that occurred in international waters off the coast of Hong Kong.
Moreover, this action is likely to represent a complex choice of laws analysis that appears to rely heavily on the outcome of factual determinations regarding whether there was a collision or merely a close passage. (See Reply at 2-4.) Given California's negligible interest in providing a forum for this action, this complex analysis is not a task that the court feels compelled to undertake given the circumstances of this case. See MAN Ferrostaal, Inc. v. M/V Vertigo, 447 F. Supp. 2d 316, 323 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (identifying the different approaches courts take to determine what law applies in vessel collission cases). As explained by the Supreme Court in Piper:
The doctrine of
forum non conveniens . . . is designed in part to help courts avoid conducting complex exercises in comparative law . . . [T]he public interest factors point towards dismissal where the court would be required to "untangle problems in conflict of law, and in law foreign to itself.
454 U.S. at 251 (quoting
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert,
330 U.S. at 509). Plaintiffs assert that because this litigation involves a third party claim against defendants for a collision that occurred in international waters, general maritime law should apply. (Opp.'n at 17 (citing
Alkmeon Naviera, S.A. v. M/V Marina L,
633 F.2d 789, 793 (9th Cir. 1980).) Defendant asserts that whether there was a collision or only a close passage is a contested fact that substantially affects the choice of law. Without reaching the merits of this argument, it is the court's opinion that even if general maritime law were to govern this action, thereby rendering the choice of law question neutral, the weight of public interest factors still would overwhelmingly in favor of dismissal.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that Hong Kong is an adequate alternative forum and that the balance of private and public factors weigh heavily in favor of dismissal on the basis of forum non conveniens. Therefore, defendant's motion to dismiss for an alternative forum is GRANTED. The clerk of the court is directed to close this file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.