Anderson v. Ahluwalia

• Decision Date: 25 February 2022
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 21-60793-CIV-SINGHAL
• Citation: 587 F.Supp.3d 1179
• Parties: Sharilyne ANDERSON and Vera Melnyk, Plaintiffs, v. Gurmeet AHLUWALIA, Niel Heselton, Dynamic Yacht Management, LLC, Dream Holdings, Ltd., and Nigel Burgess, Inc., in personam, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

587 F.Supp.3d 1179

Sharilyne ANDERSON and Vera Melnyk, Plaintiffs,
v.
Gurmeet AHLUWALIA, Niel Heselton, Dynamic Yacht Management, LLC, Dream Holdings, Ltd., and Nigel Burgess, Inc., in personam, Defendants.

CASE NO. 21-60793-CIV-SINGHAL

United States District Court, S.D. Florida.

Signed February 25, 2022
Entered February 28, 2022

587 F.Supp.3d 1184

Matthew John Valcourt, Manning Gross + Massenburg LLP, Miami, FL, for Plaintiffs.

Christopher Rogers Fertig, Darlene M. Lidondici, Fertig & Gramling, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Defendants Gurmeet Ahluwalia, Dynamic Yacht Management, L.L.C., Dream Holdings Ltd.

Ana Maria Barton, Edward Maurice Mullins, Reed Smith LLP, Miami, FL, for Defendant Nigel Burgess Inc.

OMNIBUS ORDER

RAAG SINGHAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant Dynamic Yacht Management, LLC and Gurmeet Ahluwalia's Motion to Dismiss (DE [6]), Defendant Nigel Burgess Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay All Court Proceedings and Accompanying Memorandum of Law (DE [15]), Defendant Dream Holdings Ltd.’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Memorandum of Law (DE [26]), and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production and Memorandum of Law (DE [37]). All motions are fully briefed. Accordingly, the matter is ripe for review.

I. BACKGROUND FACTS

On April 12, 2021, Plaintiffs Sharilyne Anderson and Vera Melnyk ("Plaintiffs"), residents of Canada, filed the present maritime tort action against: (1) Defendant Gurmeet Ahluwalia ("Ahluwalia"), who is believed to be domiciled in the State of Florida; (2) Defendant Niel Heselton ("Captain Heselton"), a British national residing in England; (3) Defendant Dynamic Yacht Management, LLC ("Dynamic"), a Florida limited liability company with its principal place of business in Coral Springs, Florida; (4) Defendant Dream Holdings, Ltd.’s ("Dream Holdings"), a foreign corporation organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands with an address in Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands; and (5) Defendant Nigel Burgess, Inc. ("NBI"), a Florida for profit corporation with its principal place of business in Miami Beach, Florida. Plaintiffs were guests on a private charter of a 196.9-foot luxury motor yacht called M/Y DREAM (the "Vessel"), navigating through Bahamian waters between December 22, 2020 and January 1, 2021.¹ This lawsuit arises from Plaintiffs’ allegedly unpleasant experience during the charter. They assert counts of negligence (Count I), false imprisonment (Count II), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count III) against all Defendants. Plaintiffs seek in excess of five million dollars in damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and punitive damages on all counts against all Defendants, jointly and severally.

Plaintiffs’ Complaint (DE [1]) alleges, in sum, the captain's navigational route resulted in their experiencing rough seas and severe seasickness, and the captain failed to properly ensure their safety and refused to allow them to disembark via a tender due to the dangerous ocean swell. Plaintiffs

587 F.Supp.3d 1185

claim they accepted the "Charterer's invitation to spend Christmas aboard the ‘superyacht’ " where they expected "a world class luxury cruise" managed by "highly professional crew" but instead received "a crew headed by an angry, arrogant, dismissive, and grossly negligent captain." (Compl. (DE [1]) at 1–2). Plaintiffs allege Captain Heselton refused to take the Vessel "between the island of Andros and the archipelago to the east called the Exuma District" despite being ordered to do so by Charterer pursuant to his authority under the "Charter Agreement." Id. Plaintiffs allege the Charterer entered into the Charter Agreement on December 18, 2020, with: (1) Defendant Ahluwalia, who is purportedly Dream Holdings’ agent, (2) Dream Holdings, a Cayman management company which owns the Vessel, and (3) NBI, a Florida company which manages the Vessel and its charter staff. (Compl. (DE [1]) at ¶ 18). Plaintiffs do not identify who or what the "Charterer" is anywhere in their twenty-five page Complaint (DE [1]). Nor do Plaintiffs attach said Charter Agreement to the Complaint (DE [1]) despite referencing it seven times including: in alleging proper venue because the Charterer entered into the agreement in Fort Lauderdale, Florida; in claiming the Charter Agreement guaranteed a qualified captain; in asserting the captain was required to follow the Charterer's orders; and in claiming the Charterer had authority to direct the voyage. (Compl. (DE [1]) ¶¶ 4, 10, 31, 37, 38).

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 17, 2021, Defendant Dynamic Yacht Management, LLC and Gurmeet Ahluwalia filed a Motion to Dismiss (DE [6]) for lack of jurisdiction. On September 20, 2021, Dream Holdings filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Memorandum of Law (DE [26]). Additionally, Dream Holdings filed a Declaration of Nicole Ramroop in Support of Dream Holdings, Ltd.’s Motion to Dismiss (DE [27]), which asserts, inter alia , that Dream Holdings has no office or business address in Florida and does not engage in business in Florida. On October 1, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Allow Jurisdictional Discovery of Dream Holdings (DE [29]), which was granted in part by this Court. See (Order (DE [33]), entered Nov. 10, 2022). On December 3, 2021, Dream Holdings responded to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests, however, Plaintiffs take issue with several responses provided and have filed a Motion to Compel Production and Memorandum of Law (DE [37]).

III. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

"A defendant can move to dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction by either facial or factual attack." Stalley ex rel. U.S. v. Orlando Reg'l Healthcare Sys., Inc. , 524 F.3d 1229, 1232 (11th Cir. 2008). "A ‘facial attack’ on the complaint ‘require[s] the court merely to look and see if [the] plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a basis of subject matter jurisdiction, and the allegations in his complaint are taken as true for the purposes of the motion.’ " McElmurray v. Consol. Gov't of Augusta—Richmond Cnty. , 501 F.3d 1244, 1251 (11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Lawrence v. Dunbar , 919 F.2d 1525 (11th Cir. 1990) ). "Factual attacks," on the other hand, serve to "challenge ‘the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in fact, irrespective of the pleadings, and matters outside the pleadings, such as testimony and affidavits are considered.’ " Id.

B. Personal Jurisdiction

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), a defendant may move to

587 F.Supp.3d 1186

dismiss a complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. "A federal district court sitting in diversity may exercise personal jurisdiction to the extent allowed by the law of the forum state and the Constitution's Due Process Clause." Am. Univ. of the Caribbean v. Caritas Healthcare , 484 Fed. Appx. 322, 326 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing Meier v. Sun Int'l Hotels, Ltd. , 288 F.3d 1264, 1269 (11th Cir. 2002) ). "A plaintiff seeking the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant bears the initial burden of alleging in the complaint sufficient facts to make out a prima facie case of jurisdiction." United Techs. Corp. v. Mazer , 556 F.3d 1260, 1274 (11th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). "Where, as here, the defendant challenges jurisdiction by submitting affidavit evidence in support of its position, ‘the burden traditionally shifts back to the plaintiff to produce evidence supporting jurisdiction.’ " Id. (quoting Meier , 288 F.3d at 1269 ).

"A federal court sitting in diversity undertakes a two-step inquiry in determining whether personal jurisdiction exists: the exercise of jurisdiction must (1) be appropriate under the state long-arm statute, and (2) not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." United Techs. Corp. , 556 F.3d at 1274 (11th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted); see also Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais , 554 So. 2d 499, 502 (Fla. 1989). As the extent of the long-arm statute is governed by Florida law, this Court must construe it as would the Florida Supreme Court. Sculptchair, Inc. v. Century Arts, Ltd. , 94 F.3d 623, 631 (11th Cir. 1996). In International Shoe Co. v. Washington , the U.S. Supreme Court "held that in order to subject a defendant to an in personam judgment when he is not present within the territory of the forum, due process requires that the defendant have certain minimum contacts with the forum such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais , 554 So. 2d 499, 500 (Fla. 1989). "[T]he test is whether the defendant's conduct in connection with the forum state is ‘such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.’ " Id. at 500 (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson , 444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980) ).

C. Failure to State Claim

At the pleading stage, a complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing the [plaintiff] is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Although...