the number of packages for purposes of the COGSA per-package limitation, and unless the significance of that number is plainly contradicted by contrary evidence of the parties’ intent, or unless the number refers to items that cannot qualify as ‘packages,’ it is also the ending point of our inquiry.” Id. at 902 (quoting Seguros “Illimani” S.A. v. M/V Popi P, 929 F.2d 89, 94 (2d Cir.1991)). In the instant case, the number 33 appears in the column headed “No. of Containers or Pkgs.” The number one, representing the number of forty-foot metal shipping containers in which the cargo was contained, is in the same column, but this number cannot represent the number of COGSA packages under Ninth Circuit law. See All Pacific Trading, Inc. v. M/V Hanjin Yosu, 7 F.3d 1427, 1433 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). The number 177 does not appear in that
holding that there is no prejudice where the racial reference was for purposes of identification holding loss of documents and death of witness did not impair defense where both events occurred when there was no presumption of prejudice holding that the 99 bales of leather inside a container constituted the relevant package for cogsa purposes holding that where bill of lading listed both number of containers and number of packages under heading no of pkgs or containers it was clear that the large shipping containers were not packages for cogsa purposes holding that although the defendant filed a number of motions because the original trial date never changed as a result of those motions no delay could be attributed to the motions