Amstar Corp. v. SS ALEXANDROS, 77 Civ. 1524 (KTD).
| Decision Date | 01 September 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77 Civ. 1524 (KTD).,77 Civ. 1524 (KTD). |
| Citation | 457 F. Supp. 717 |
| Parties | AMSTAR CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. SS ALEXANDROS, her engines, boilers, etc., Nava Shipping Co., Ltd. and Marine Trading, Ltd., Defendants. MARINE TRADING, LTD., Third-Party Plaintiff, v. SUGAR CHARTERING, INC., Third-Party Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Atkins, Weymar & McDonald, New York City, for plaintiff; Joseph B. McDonald, New York City, of counsel.
Healy & Baillie, New York City, for defendant Marine Trading, Ltd.; Walter I. Skinner, New York City, of counsel.
Plaintiff Amstar Corporation brings this action for damages and shortage to a bulk shipment of sugar carried aboard the M. V. Alexandros T against the ship, her owners and various parties who had chartered the vessel. The action is posited under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 46 U.S.C. § 1300 et seq.
The defendant, Marine Trading, Ltd. has moved pursuant to 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction; for insufficient service of process; and, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
During all of the relevant period the M. V. Alexandros T was chartered by Marine Trading, Ltd. as charterers from the Eastern Mediterranean Maritime Limited as disponent owners under a time-charter party dated February 27, 1976. Thereafter on March 3, 1976 Marine Trading, Ltd. in turn subchartered the vessel to Sugar Chartering, Inc. hereinafter referred to as "Sugar Chartering" the third-party defendant in this action.
Sugar Chartering as subcharterer of the vessel thereafter ordered the vessel to call at Puerto Barrios, Guatemala where the cargo in issue was loaded on board. A clean bill of lading, dated March 22, 1976, was issued and signed on behalf of the Master by Transmares S. A. The cargo was thereafter discharged at the port of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It is claimed by the plaintiff that upon discharge this cargo was found to be damaged and short.
The plaintiff has tried to climb the ladder of the various charters by alleging that the bill of lading in question incorporates into its terms the provision of the various charters and subcharters. It is further asserted that since the subcharter party between the movant Marine Trading and Sugar Chartering was executed in New York that this constitutes the transaction of business within the State of New York so as to bring the defendant Marine Trading within the reach of the long arm state of New York. New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 302(a)(1) (McKinney 1972).
Other than the subcharter by the movant to Sugar Chartering and the fact that that subcharter was executed in New York there appears to be no substantial contacts between the complained of actions and the State...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
SEC v. Electronics Warehouse, Inc.
... ... Civ. No. H-86-282(PCD) ... United States District ... Research Automation Corp., 585 F.2d 31, 33 (2d Cir.1978) ... ...
-
Lomanco, Inc. v. Missouri Pacific R. Co.
...433 U.S. 186, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977); Hutson v. Fehr Bros., Inc., 584 F.2d 833 (8th Cir.1978); and Amstar Corp. v. S.S. Alexandros, 457 F.Supp. 717 (S.D.N.Y.1978) (a case involving a COGSA action in which, like the case at hand, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the defenda......
-
ICC HANDELS AG v. SS" SEABIRD"
...the charter agreements does not serve to bring these activities within the purview of Section 302. See Amstar Corp. v. S.S. Alexandros, 457 F.Supp. 717 (S.D.N.Y.1978). See also Masonite Corp. v. Hellenic Lines, Ltd., 412 F.Supp. 434 (S.D.N.Y.1976); ACLI Internat'l Inc. v. Maersk Rando, et a......