De Bree v. Pac. Drilling Servs.
| Decision Date | 29 October 2019 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. H-18-4711 |
| Parties | BREEN DE BREE, Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC DRILLING SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Pending in this case that has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge are Motions to Dismiss filed by the two remaining Defendants in this case: Pacific Santa Ana Sarl and Pacific Drilling Manpower, Ltd. (Document Nos. 31 & 32). Both motions seek dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Having considered the motions, the responses, replies and additional briefing, the claims alleged, and the evidence in the record, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS, for the reasons set forth below, that both Motions to Dismiss (Document Nos. 31 & 32) be GRANTED and that Plaintiff's claims against the remaining defendants be DISMISSED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) for lack of personal jurisdiction, and for failure to state a claim.
This is a Jones Act personal injury case that was filed by Plaintiff Breen De Bree, a Dutch citizen, in state court, against Pacific Drilling, Inc., Pacific Drilling Services, Inc. and Rex Covens. The case was removed to this Court and Defendants all filed Motions to Dismiss, arguing that they each had been improperly joined as Defendants. While facing those Motions to Dismiss, De Bree filed an Amended Complaint (Document No. 9), adding two new Defendants to the case: Pacific Drilling Manpower, Ltd. and Pacific Santa Ana Sarl. On July 26, 2019, it was determined that the original Defendants - Pacific Drilling, Inc., Pacific Drilling Services, Inc. and Rex Covens - were all improperly joined, and they were each dismissed. That left Defendants Pacific Santa Ana Sarl ("Pacific SAS") and Pacific Drilling Manpower, Ltd. ("Pacific Manpower, Ltd."), both of which have moved for dismissal under Rules 12(b)(2), 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6). As is relevant to those Motions to Dismiss, De Bree alleges in the First Amended Complaint that:
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Document No. 9) at 2-3. De Bree also alleges that on May 26, 2018, while he was working on the PACIFIC SANTA ANA, "he was struck in the face with a scaffolding pole." As the evidence in the record has already shown, De Bree was employed by Pacific Manpower, Ltd. at the time of his alleged injury (Document No. 12-2), and the PACIFIC SANTA ANA was owned by Pacific SAS at the time of his alleged injury (Document Nos. 11-4 and 12-3 at 1-3). Although De Bree does not allege where the injury took place, the evidence in therecord, not controverted in any regard by De Bree, is that he was injured while aboard the PACIFIC SANTA ANA, which was anchored in the territorial waters of Spain.
In their Motions to Dismiss, Pacific SAS and Pacific Manpower Ltd. first argue that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them because they do not do business in Texas, nor do they have continuous and systematic contacts with the State of Texas. Second, they argue that they were not properly served. Third, and finally, they argue that Plaintiff cannot maintain his personal injury claims against them because 46 U.S.C. § 30105(b) precludes such claims in this forum. De Bree, in response to both motions, argues that both Defendants have some contact with the forum through their agent/employee Johnnes Boots who resides here, and through Rex Covens, who also resides in this forum. De Bree additionally argues that he should be able to conduct discovery to determine whether Defendants are alter egos of a US-forum based parent corporation whose contacts with the forum could be imputed to Defendants. As for the service issue, De Bree argues that both Defendants have sufficient notice of this case, and that the case should not be dismissed based on any procedural imperfections in the method of service utilized. Finally, De Bree argues that there is an exception to the statutory provision relied upon by Defendants (§ 30105), and that they should be afforded an opportunity to conduct discovery on that exception prior to the Court's consideration of Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
Because the evidence in the record shows that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the remaining Defendants and that De Bree has not stated a plausible claim against them given the statutory restriction set forth in 46 U.S.C. § 30105(b), the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that De Bree's claims be dismissed on that basis without reaching the sufficiency of service issue.
Defendants Pacific SAS and Pacific Manpower, Ltd. argue that the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over them because their principal places of business were either Luxembourg or the British Virgin Islands, and they have no contacts with this forum. De Bree, in response, argues that there is no evidence to refute his allegations that Defendants' principal place of business is in this forum, that at least two of Defendants' employees are based in this forum, and that he should be allowed to conduct jurisdictional discovery before there is any determination about whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants.
A federal court may exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if (1) the long-arm statute of the forum state confers personal jurisdiction over that defendant; and (2) the exercise of such jurisdiction comports with due process under the United States Constitution. See Ruston Gas Turbines, Inc. v. Donaldson Co., 9 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir. 1993). Because the Texas long-arm statute has been interpreted to extend as far as due process permits, the sole inquiry is whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant comports with federal constitutional due process requirements. Id.
Due process requirements for exercising personal jurisdiction over a nonresident have been defined by the United States Supreme Court in a familiar body of case law, and have been more recently explained and applied by the Fifth Circuit in Monkton Insurance Services v. Ritter, 768 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 2014). The due process inquiry focuses upon whether the nonresident defendant has "certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 66S. Ct. 154, 158 (1945). A minimum contacts analysis involves more than counting the nonresident's contacts with the forum. See Stuart v. Spademan, 772 F.2d 1185, 1189-90 (5th Cir. 1985). Rather, the Court "must determine whether the nonresident has purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws." Bearry v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 818 F.2d 370, 374 (5th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted).
Two types of personal jurisdiction are recognized: "specific" and "general." General jurisdiction exists when "the defendant's 'affiliations with the State are so continuous and systematic as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum State.'" Monkton, 768 F.3d at 432 (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 28446, 2851 (2011)). Specific jurisdiction, in contrast, exists when the cause of action relates to or arises out of the defendant's contacts with the forum. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 104 S. Ct. 1868, 1872 n.8 (1984).
A three-part inquiry is used to determine whether specific jurisdiction exists. Under that three-part analysis, the Court must determine:
(1) whether the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum state, i.e., whether it purposely directed its activities toward the forum state or purposely availed itself of the privileges of conducting activities there; (2) whether the plaintiff's cause of action arises out of or results from the defendant's forum-related contacts; and (3) whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction is fair and reasonable.
Monkton, 768 F.3d at 433 (quoting Seiferth v. Helicopteros Atuneros, Inc., 472 F.3d 266, 271 (5th Cir. 2006)). As for general jurisdiction over a corporation, it exists where the defendant's contacts are so "continuous and systematic" that the defendant is "essentially at home in the forum State." Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 127 (2014) (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011). With respect to general jurisdiction over a corporation, it existsin the "place of incorporation" or where the corporation maintains its "primary place of business." Jones v. Artists Rights Enforcement Corp., ___ F. App'x ___, 2019 WL 5406260 *2 (5th Cir. Oct. 22, 2019); see also Wartsila N. Am., Inc. v. Int'l Ctr. for Dispute Resolution, 387 F....
To continue reading
Request your trial