World Tanker Carriers Corp. v. M/V Ya Mawlaya

Decision Date14 November 1996
Docket NumberNo. 96-30095,96-30095
Citation99 F.3d 717
Parties, 36 Fed.R.Serv.3d 472 WORLD TANKER CARRIERS CORP., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MV YA MAWLAYA, her engines, boilers, tackle, furniture, apparel, etc., in rem, et al., Defendants. Kara Mara Shipping Company Limited; Holbud Ship Management, Ltd.; Holbud Ltd.; Hydery (P) Ltd., in personam; Vestman Shipping Co., Sperex Shipping Company, Limited; SNP Ship Management and Consultation Bureau of Bombay; SNP Shipping Service Private Limited; Roshanali Merali Roshanali Rajabali Dewji; Hasnain Merali; Shaukat A. Merali, Defendants-Appellees. CIRPRIANO B., Plaintiff, v. NEW WORLD MT, her engines, boilers, tackle, furniture, apparel, etc., in rem, et al., Defendants. CEREOL ITALIA SRL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MV YA MAWLAYA, her engines, boilers, tackle, etc., et al., Defendants. Salome de Guia ENRIQUEZ; Marisusa A. Recana, individually, as widow and administratrix of the succession of Solito S. Recana and as guardian/natural tutrix of the minor children, April A. Recana, Jenny-Lynn A. Recana and Caroline A. Recana; Corazon C. Amulong, individually, as widow and administratrix of the succession of Felix C. Amulong and as guardian/natural tutrix of the minor children Alexander Amulong & Alexis Amulong; Conrado A. Mendoza, individually and as administrator of the succession of his son, Edmundo Mendoza; Felicidad A. Mendoza, mother of Edmundo Mendoza; Arlene Manzanida, individually, as widow and administratrix of the succession of Noli Manzanida and as guardian/natural tutrix of the minor children, Krishna Manzanida, Krishtian Ace Manzanida & Krizhzar Manzanida, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WORLD TANKER CARRIERS CORP., et al., Defendants. Arlene Manzanida, individually, as widow and administratrix of the succession of Noli Manzanida, and as guardian/natural tutrix of the minor children, Krishna Manzanida, Krishtian Ace Manzanida and Krizhzar Manzanida, et al., Claimants, Cereol Italia, SRL, Claimant-Appellant, Cipriano B. Dela Cruz, Claimant-Appellant, Kara Mara Shipping Company, Ltd., as
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Antonio J. Rodriguez, Mary Campbell Hubbard, Alanson Trigg Chenault, IV, Rice Fowler, New Orleans, LA, Brian D. Starer, James Theo Shirley, Jr., Haight, Gardner, Poor & Havens, New York City, for World Tanker Carriers Corp., plaintiff-appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

DUHE, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff-Appellant World Tanker Carriers Corp. appeals the district court's dismissal of its maritime law claim against Defendants-Appellees M/V Ya Mawlaya, et al. 1 for want of personal jurisdiction. The court held that Appellant could not assert personal jurisdiction over Appellees pursuant to either the Louisiana long-arm statute or Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(2). Because we conclude that the district court erred in its interpretation of Rule 4(k)(2), we reverse and remand.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Two vessels, the M/V Ya Mawlaya ("Ya Mawlaya") and the M/V New World ("New World"), collided in international waters off the coast of Portugal. The New World, an ocean-going tanker registered under the laws of Hong Kong and owned by Appellant World Tanker Carriers Corp. ("World Tanker") of Liberia, was proceeding from Gabon to France. The Ya Mawlaya, an ocean-going bulk carrier registered under the laws of Cyprus, was proceeding to Italy with a cargo of soybeans, owned by Cereol Italia Srl. 2 and loaded in Destrahan, Louisiana, within the port of New Orleans. The ownership of the Ya Mawlaya is unclear; World Tanker alleges that the ship's registered owner is Kara Mara Shipping Company, Ltd., of Cyprus, while Appellees claim that the owner is Vestman Shipping Company, Ltd., also of Cyprus. Both have been named as defendants along with others, as individuals and as companies, all foreign, who allegedly have ownership or management interests in the Ya Mawlaya, Vestman Shipping Company, Ltd., and/or Kara Mara Shipping Company, Ltd.

The collision caused an explosion and fire, resulting in the deaths of eight crew members, personal injury to others, and property damage to the vessels and their cargoes. Several lawsuits were filed as a result: World Tanker sued Kara Mara under the general maritime law for damages arising from the collision (Civil Action number 94-4190); Cereol Italia Srl., the owner of the Ya Mawlaya 's cargo, sued both Kara Mara and World Tanker under the Carriage of Goods at Sea Act (COGSA), 14 U.S.C. 1300 et seq., for the loss of its cargo (95-511); New World crewmen or their survivors sued World Tanker and Kara Mara for injuries and deaths (95-396, 95-1151, and 95-3295). In response to these suits, Kara Mara Shipping Company, Ltd. filed a limitation action (95-1948). All suits were consolidated.

Appellees moved to dismiss all proceedings against them, asserting as a defense lack of personal jurisdiction. 3 World Tanker, the lead plaintiff, opposed this motion, advancing two jurisdictional theories. First, World Tanker asserts that Appellees are subject to jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Louisiana under the Louisiana long-arm statute; this claim depends on the extent of Appellee's "minimum contacts" with Louisiana. Second, World Tanker argues that even if the court finds that minimum contacts have not been established, Appellees are nonetheless subject to the long-arm jurisdiction of the district court pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(2) based on their contacts with the nation as a whole.

The district court disagreed, granting Appellees' motion to dismiss and holding that neither the state long-arm statute nor Rule 4(k)(2) provides a basis for personal jurisdiction over Appellees. The court first found that World Tanker failed to establish a prima facie case of jurisdiction demonstrating Appellees' minimum contacts with Louisiana sufficient to satisfy the due process requirements of the state long-arm statute. The court then dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction on the theory that it could not order the requested additional jurisdictional discovery under Rule 4(k)(2) because the consolidated cases did not present a claim "arising under federal law," the jurisdictional predicate of Rule 4(k)(2). The court interpreted this phrase as a reference to "federal question cases" and therefore found the rule inapposite insofar as World Tanker had not raised a federal question claim against Kara Mara. Because we disagree with the court's interpretation of Rule 4(k)(2), we cannot today hold that World Tanker cannot establish a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction. We therefore reverse and remand for additional jurisdictional discovery pursuant to Rule 4(k)(2). 4

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

"When the facts are not in dispute, we review de novo a district court's determination that its exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant is proper." Wilson v. Belin, 20 F.3d 644, 647-48 (5th Cir.1994); see also Felch v. Transportes Lar-Mex Sa De CV et al., 92 F.3d 320, 324 (5th Cir.1996).

III. DISCUSSION
A. National Contacts Pursuant to Rule 4(k)(2)
1. Scope of Rule 4(k)(2)

Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(2) provides:

If the exercise of jurisdiction is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, serving a summons or filing a waiver of service is also effective, with respect to claims arising under federal law, to establish personal jurisdiction over the person of any defendant who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of general jurisdiction of any state.

Rule 4(k)(2) thus sanctions personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants for claims arising under federal law when the defendant has sufficient contacts with the nation as a whole to justify the imposition of United States' law but without sufficient contacts to satisfy the due process concerns of the long-arm statute of any particular state. See Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. M/T Iver Champion et al, No. 91-0911, 1995 WL 295293, at * 5 (E.D.La. May 11, 1995); 4 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1069 (Supp.1996).

At the core of this case is whether admiralty actions arise under federal law, an issue of first impression for this Court. Before we determine whether admiralty claims fall under Rule 4(k)(2), we must first consider the meaning of "arising under federal law." World Tanker argues that the district court improperly reads the jurisdictional predicate of Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(2) narrowly as to circumscribe solely federal question cases. Several arguments rooted in text and legislative history support World Tanker's proposition.

The text of Rule 4(k)(2) does not, by its terms, limit itself solely to federal question cases. Instead, the rule states that it applies to "claims arising under federal law," the plain meaning of which incorporates all substantive federal law claims. The Advisory Committee Notes following Rule 4(k)(2) buttress this argument. Throughout its discussion of the Rule, the Advisory Committee refers to federal law broadly as substantive law, not narrowly as a jurisdictional requirement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. For example, the Advisory Committee states that Rule 4(k)(2) "authorizes the exercise of territorial jurisdiction over the person of any defendant against whom is made a claim arising under any federal law if that person is subject to personal jurisdiction in no state." (emphasis added). The use of the word "any" to qualify "federal law" strongly suggests that the Advisory Committee intended Rule 4(k)(2) to reach not just federal question cases under § 1331 but all...

To continue reading

Request your trial
102 cases
  • Mylonakis v. Georgios M.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • 3 December 2012
    ...has sufficient contacts with the nation as a whole to justify the imposition of United States' law. See World Tanker Carriers Corp. v. M/V Ya Mawlava, 99 F.3d 717, 720 (5th Cir. 1996). Texas courts may assert personal jurisdiction "over a nonresident if (1) the Texas long-arm statute author......
  • Fraserside IP L.L.C. v. Letyagin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • 7 August 2012
    ...due process. See Synthes (U.S.A.) v. G.M. Dos Reis Jr., 563 F.3d 1285, 1293–94 (Fed.Cir.2009); see also World Tanker Carriers Corp. v. M/V Ya Mawlaya, 99 F.3d 717, 720 (5th Cir.1996); see also Oldfield, 558 F.3d at 1218–19.8 I take up each of these requirements seriatim.1. Claim arises unde......
  • Exter Shipping Ltd. v. Kilakos
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • 29 March 2004
    ...doctrine beyond the boundaries of the forum state to include all contacts to the United States as a whole. World Tanker Carriers Corp. v. M/V Ya Mawlaya, 99 F.3d 717 (5th Cir.1996). As the Defendants' contacts with states other than Georgia do not substantially increase the Defendants' cont......
  • Fraserside IP L.L.C. v. Netvertising Ltd.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • 5 October 2012
    ...due process. See Synthes (U.S.A.) v. G.M. Dos Reis Jr., 563 F.3d 1285, 1293–94 (Fed.Cir.2009); see also World Tanker Carriers Corp. v. M/V Ya Mawlaya, 99 F.3d 717, 720 (5th Cir.1996); see also Oldfield, 558 F.3d at 1218–19.8 I take up each of these requirements seriatim.1. Claim arises unde......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Personal Jurisdiction, Process, and Venue in Antitrust and Business Tort Litigation
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Business Torts and Unfair Competition Handbook Business tort litigation
    • 1 January 2014
    ...following: 128. United States v. Swiss Am. Bank, 191 F.3d 30, 38 (1st Cir. 1999); see also World Tanker Carriers Corp. v. M/V Ya Mawlaya, 99 F.3d 717, 720 (5th Cir. 1996) (under Rule 4(k)(2), foreign defendant’s contacts with nation as whole are enough to justify personal jurisdiction over ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT