IN RE: ONE APUS CONTAINER SHIP INCIDENT ON NOVEMBER 30 (2022)

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel: Eleven Non-Vessel Owning Common Carrier (NVOCC) defendants ¹ move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Southern District of New York. This litigation consists of forty-nine actions pending in ten districts, as listed on Schedule A.² The parties have informed the Panel of nine related actions pending in two districts.³ All responding parties support centralization in the Southern District of New York.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that the actions listed on Schedule A involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Southern District of New York will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions arise from an incident involving the ultra large container vessel ONE Apus. This vessel allegedly encountered severe weather on November 30, 2020, resulting in a substantial roll during which approximately 1,800 containers were lost overboard. Approximately 1,000 additional containers were damaged by the collapse of the container stacks. The actions on the motion fall into two categories: (a) actions brought by either subrogated underwriters or the cargo shippers or consignees of the allegedly lost or damaged cargoes, who seek to recoup their losses; and (b) actions for indemnification by NVOCCs against the vessel interests. All the actions will involve common questions of fact as to the events of November 30, 2020, and the cause or causes of the cargo loss. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.

The Southern District of New York is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. The district is requested by movants and supported by all responding parties. Nearly half of the related actions (27 of 58) are pending in this district. The parties assert that the ONE Apus calls at ports located in or near the Southern District of New York, which will facilitate discovery. We assign this litigation to the Honorable Paul A. Engelmayer, an experienced transferee judge with the capacity to take on this litigation. We are confident that Judge Engelmayer will steer this litigation on a prudent and expeditious course.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside the Southern District of New York are transferred to the Southern District of New York and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Paul A. Engelmayer for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

SCHEDULE A

MDL No. 3028 — IN RE: ONE APUS CONTAINER SHIP INCIDENT ON NOVEMBER 30, 2020

 Central District of California

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA v. AMERICAN COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:21–08784

CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYDS OF LONDON SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO. 600230 v. EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL OF WASHINGTON, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:21–08951

ATLANTIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. v. APEX LOGISTICS INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:21–08974

ASHTEAD HOLDINGS, INC. v. DE WELL CONTAINER SHIPPING, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:21–08985

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. v. CNK LINE AND LOGISTICS CO., LTD, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:21–09007

ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. v. AMERICA PACIFIC CONTAINER LINE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:21–09083

NAVIGATORS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC. v. APEX LOGISTICS INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:21–09159

STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. DE WELL CONTAINER SHIPPING, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:21–09290

BACKER EHP, INC., ET AL. v. M/V ONE APUS, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:21–09605

FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. TOPOCEAN CONSOLIDATION SERVICE LOS ANGELES INC., C.A. No. 2:21–10016

 Northern District of California

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA v. FLEXPORT INTERNATIONAL LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:21–08642

STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. v. APEX MARITIME CO. (LAX), INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:21–08879

INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. FLEXPORT INTERNATIONAL LLC, C.A. No. 3:21–08957

PEAG LLC, ET AL. v. FLEXPORT INTERNATIONAL LLC, C.A. No. 3:21–09376

MEYER CORPORATION, ET AL. v. APEX MARITIME CO., INC., C.A. No. 4:21–08947

SME CONSOLIDATED LTD., ET AL. v. APEX MARTIME CO., INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:21–09283

 Northern District of Illinois

FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. AIT WORLDWIDE LOGISTICS, INC., C.A. No. 1:21–06383

NAVIGATORS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC. v. R.I.M. LOGISTICS, LTD., C.A. No. 1:21–06406

INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, ET AL. v. DIMERCO EXPRESS (U.S.A.) CORP., C.A. No. 1:21–06498

 District of New Jersey

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA v. DYNAMIC WORLDWIDE LOGISTICS, INC., C.A. No. 2:21–19924

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL CARGO SERVICE, INC., C.A. No. 2:21–20152

 Eastern District of New York

NAVIGATORS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC. v. AIRPORT CLEARANCE SERVICE, INC., C.A. No. 2:21–06856

 Southern District of New York

MSIG MINGTAI INSURANCE CO., LTD., ET AL. v. DANMAR LINES LTD., C.A. No. 1:21–07994

TOKIO MARINE NEWA INSURANCE CO., LTD. v. ORIENT EXPRESS CONTAINER CO., LTD., C.A. No. 1:21–09194

ATLANTIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. v. CHINA INT'L FREIGHT CO., LTD., C.A. No. 1:21–09195

STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL. v. TRUST FREIGHT SERVICES, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:21–09370

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA v. ALL–WAYS FORWARDING INT'L, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:21–09388

NAVIGATORS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., ET AL. v. KINTETSU WORLD EXPRESS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:21–09546

M+R FORWARDING PTE. LTD. v. BENKEL INTERNATIONAL PTE LTD., C.A. No. 1:21–09752

HANESBRANDS, INC., ET AL. v. EFL CONTAINER LINES, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:21–09858

FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. US PACIFIC TRANSPORT, INC., C.A. No. 1:21–09935

FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. ORIENT EXPRESS CONTAINER CO., LTD., C.A. No. 1:21–09975

DE WELL CONTAINER SHIPPING, INC. v. CHIDORI SHIP HOLDING LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:21–09980

FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. LAUFER GROUP INTERNATIONAL, LTD., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:21–09992

THE PEOPLE'S INSURANCE COMPANY OF CHINA (HONG KONG), LTD. v. DAMCO INTERNATIONAL B.V., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:21–10113

ALL–WAYS FORWARDING INT'L, INC. v. M/V ONE APUS, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:21–10154

ROANOKE INSURANCE GROUP, INC. v. KUEHNE NAGEL INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:21–10172

HUATAI PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., LTD. QINGDAO BRANCH v. YANG MING MARINE TRANSPORT CORP., C.A. No. 1:21–10173

XL INSURANCE COMPANY, (AXA), ET AL. v. ALL–WAYS FORWARDING INT'L, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:21–10177

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA v. KUEHNE + NAGEL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:21–10183

ATLANTIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. ALL–WAYS FORWARDING INT'L, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:21–10344

STARR INDEMITY & LIABILITY COMPANY, INC. v. AIRPORT CLEARANCE SERVICE, INC., C.A. No. 1:21–10554

DHL GLOBAL FORWARDING (THAILAND) LIMITED, ET AL. v. VANGUARD LOGISTICS SERVICES (HONG KONG) LTD., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:21–10598

 District of Oregon

NAVIGATORS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., ET AL. v. OREGON INTERNATIONAL AIR FREIGHT CO., C.A. No. 3:21–01703

 Middle District of Tennessee

NAVIGATORS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC. v. WORLDBRIDGE LOGISTICS, INC., C.A. No. 3:21–00883

Southern District of Texas

STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY COMPANY v. CRANE WORLDWIDE LOGISTICS LLC, C.A. No. 4:21–03809

 Western District of Washington

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL OCEAN, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:21–01593

NAVIGATORS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC. v. EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL OF WASHINGTON INC., C.A. No. 2:21–01598

STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY COMPANY v. EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL OCEAN, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:21–01606

FOOTNOTES

1.   Moving defendants are Apex Logistics International Inc.; Orient Express Container Co., Ltd.; Flexport International LLC; Dimerco Express (USA) Corp.; RS Logistics Limited; Oregon International Air Freight Co.; Air Tiger Express (ASIA) Inc.; Apex Maritime Co. (LAX), Inc.; Apex Maritime Co. (ORD), Inc.; Apex Maritime Co., Inc.; and Rohlig USA, LLC.

2.   Two additional actions on the motion were subsequently dismissed.

3.   These and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h), 7.1, and 7.2.

KAREN K. CALDWELL, Chair