Ross v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
- Kandis Westmore
- 4:21-cv-04086
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Ross v. Chevron, Judge Westmore ordered more briefing on Sonangol’s jurisdiction challenge, canceled the hearing, and postponed the case-management conference.
Matthew Ross and Sonangol Sambizanga Ltd.; the order also changed the scheduled motion hearing and case-management conference for the case.
What happened
Ross v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. concerns Matthew Ross’s claim that he was injured while serving as a seaman and crew member on a tanker operated by Sonangol Sambizanga Ltd. Ross alleges that the injury occurred near India.
Sonangol asked the court to dismiss the case because it lacked personal jurisdiction, meaning the court may not have power over Sonangol. Ross argued that Sonangol had established a connection with California through contracts with Chevron and another California company involved in the tanker’s ocean-transport venture. The court said it was not clear that those contracts created the required connection with California, especially because the contract’s performance occurred outside the United States.
The court ordered Ross to file a supplemental brief and Sonangol to respond, vacated the scheduled motion hearing, and continued the case-management conference to June 14, 2022. Judge Kandis Westmore did not decide the motion to dismiss in this order.
The detailed version
- Ross v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. · No. 4:21-cv-04086
- Kandis Westmore
- Apr. 1, 2022
Background
Matthew Ross alleges that he was injured while serving as a seaman and crew member on a tanker operated by Defendant Sonangol Sambizanga Ltd. The opinion identifies Ross as a Maine resident. It describes Sonangol Sambizanga Ltd. as a Bahamas company whose tanker operates between Africa and India, does not call at any United States port, and apparently was near India when Ross was injured.
Sonangol Sambizanga Ltd. moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction is a court’s authority over a defendant. Ross argued that the court had specific jurisdiction based on Sonangol’s alleged purposeful direction of activity toward California through agreements with Chevron U.S.A. Inc. and third-party ALSS, both of which Ross said were located in California. Ross also asserted that the companies formed a joint venture for ocean transport of liquefied natural gas and that he was employed by both entities as the tanker’s master.
Court’s Analysis
The court required additional briefing because it was not clear that contracts between a foreign company and California companies could establish specific jurisdiction when the contract’s performance occurred outside the United States. The court directed Ross to address authority stating that the minimum-contacts analysis focuses on a defendant’s contacts with the forum state itself, not merely its contacts with people who live there. It also directed Ross to address authority stating that a contract alone does not automatically establish minimum contacts in a plaintiff’s home forum; instead, the contract must contemplate continuing, broad contacts with the forum or exploitation of a market there.
Order and Effect
The court ordered Ross to file a supplemental brief within two weeks, limited to ten pages, and ordered Sonangol to respond within one week after Ross’s filing, also with a ten-page limit. The court vacated the April 7, 2022 motion hearing and said it would set a hearing if one became necessary after reviewing the supplemental briefs. It continued the April 12, 2022 case-management conference to June 14, 2022, at 1:30 p.m., and required the joint case-management statement by June 7, 2022.
Judge Kandis Westmore did not grant or deny Sonangol’s motion to dismiss in this order. The order addressed supplemental briefing and scheduling only.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.