Mapfre Peru Compania De Seguros Y Reaseguros S.A. v. M/V As Fortuna

Background

The plaintiffs were foreign insurers and cargo consignees seeking recovery of salvage expenses paid after cargo was recovered from the vessel M/V AS FORTUNA. They alleged that the vessel grounded off Ecuador on September 13, 2018, because of an electrical failure, and that the defendants were responsible because the vessel was unseaworthy, the defendants breached duties as common carriers, and they were negligent and at fault.

The motion was filed by As Fortuna OPCO B.V. (“OPCO”). OPCO asked the court to dismiss the complaint against it for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), or alternatively under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, which allows dismissal when another forum is substantially more appropriate. The plaintiffs alleged on information and belief that OPCO regularly conducted business in New York and requested jurisdictional discovery.

Personal Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction is the court’s authority over a particular defendant. The court explained that the plaintiffs had to make a preliminary factual showing that New York law authorized jurisdiction over OPCO. New York law recognizes general jurisdiction when a company conducts continuous, permanent, and substantial business in New York, and specific jurisdiction when the claims are sufficiently connected to the company’s New York activities or certain other conduct covered by New York’s long-arm statute.

The court held that the plaintiffs had not established general jurisdiction. OPCO was organized under foreign law and had its registered office and place of business in the Netherlands. The vessel never called in New York while OPCO owned it. The court relied on declarations stating that OPCO had not conducted business in New York, registered to do business there, maintained an office, employed workers, kept a bank account, advertised, had a customer, maintained an agent for service of process, or owned real property there.

The court also held that the plaintiffs had not established specific jurisdiction. The grounding occurred off Ecuador, and the plaintiffs did not allege that OPCO purposefully conducted New York business connected to the claims. The court further found no allegations or supporting facts showing that New York was the location of the original event causing the injury. Because New York law did not authorize jurisdiction, the court did not reach whether exercising jurisdiction would comply with constitutional due-process requirements.

Jurisdictional Discovery

The court declined the plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional discovery. It explained that a plaintiff who has not made a preliminary showing of personal jurisdiction is not entitled to discovery on that issue, and it determined that the plaintiffs had not made that showing.

Disposition

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted OPCO’s motion to dismiss. The complaint was dismissed as to OPCO for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the clerk was directed to terminate OPCO as a defendant. The court did not address OPCO’s alternative forum non conveniens argument.