Clark v. Moran Towing & Transp. Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 15 May 1990 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 89-5396. |
| Citation | 738 F. Supp. 1023 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
| Parties | Eugene and Annie CLARK v. MORAN TOWING & TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. and MV MAUREEN MORAN, etc. |
Francis A. Courtenay, Jr., John M. Daves, Courtenay, Forstall, Guilbault, Hunter & Fontona, New Orleans, for plaintiffs.
Robert J. Barbier, Terriberry, Carroll & Yancey, New Orleans, La., for defendants.
Plaintiffs Eugene and Annie Clark filed this suit against the defendants Moran Towing and Transportation Company and the M/V MAUREEN MORAN. Eugene Clark was employed as a seaman by defendant Moran Towing and Transportation Company and claims that he suffered injuries on February 16, 1989 while working aboard the M/V MAUREEN MORAN, a vessel chartered to Moran Towing and Transportation Company. The M/V MAUREEN MORAN was off the coast of New York at the time of the accident, and did not enter the Eastern District of Louisiana at any relevant time.
Defendant Moran Towing and Transportation Company is incorporated in the state of New York and has its principal place of business in Greenwich, Connecticut. It is not licensed to conduct business nor does it conduct business or have assets or offices in Louisiana. Defendant also claims that it does not have any employees in Louisiana who work for the company.1 Thus, defendant argues, personal jurisdiction does not exist and venue is improper in the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Based on the asserted lack of personal jurisdiction, defendant argues that service pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e) was defective because Louisiana law requires that personal jurisdiction exist to effect service pursuant to the Louisiana long-arm statute, La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 13:3201 (West Supp. 1990). Defendant then argues that even if personal jurisdiction exists and venue is proper, I should transfer this case under the forum non conveniens doctrine. Finally, defendant moves for summary judgment on the basis that there is no dispute as to a material fact.2
Plaintiffs oppose all motions and argue that venue is proper and personal jurisdiction exists. Plaintiffs further contend that I should give their choice of forum due consideration when determining whether to transfer the case.
Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Louisiana if a defendant resides within this district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). Section 1391(c) of Title 28 requires the court to perform a minimum contacts/due process analysis to determine whether a corporate defendant resides within the district for the purposes of venue.
(c) For the purposes of venue under this chapter, a defendant that is a corporation shall be deemed to reside in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced. In a State which has more than one judicial district and in which a defendant that is a corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time an action is commenced, such corporation shall be deemed to reside in any district in that State within which its contacts would be sufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction if that district were a separate state....
28 U.S.C. § 1391(c).
Similarly, the ineffective service issue depends solely on whether this court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
Whenever a statute or rule of court of the state in which the district court is held provides (1) for service of a summons, or of a notice, or of an order in lieu of summons upon a party not an inhabitant of or found within the state, ... service may ... be made under the circumstances and in the manner prescribed in the statute or rule.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e). Because the Jones Act does not contain a specific service provision, service is made pursuant to the law of the forum state.
Plaintiffs served the defendant in this case pursuant to the Louisiana long-arm statute, La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 13:3201 (West Supp.1990). Defendant claims that this service is defective because defendant does not have the required minimum contacts with the forum state. In addition to the specifically listed instances of personal jurisdiction, section 13:3201 provides that "a court of this state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident on any basis consistent with the constitution of this state and of the Constitution of the United States." La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 13:3201(B) (West Supp.1990). Because Louisiana's long-arm statute permits service to the full extent of due process, the statutory and constitutional inquiries merge. See Dalton v. R & W Marine, Inc., 897 F.2d 1359, 1361 (5th Cir.1990). Thus, defendant's venue and ineffective service arguments depend solely upon whether this court has personal jurisdiction over it.
When a challenge is made to the court's in personam jurisdiction, the party who seeks to invoke the district court's jurisdiction bears the burden of making a prima facie showing of sufficient facts to establish jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant.3 In determining whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction, uncontroverted allegations in the complaint must be taken as true.4 Additionally, all conflicts between the facts contained in the parties' affidavits must be resolved in favor of the plaintiff.5
A federal court may exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant provided state law confers such jurisdiction and its exercise comports with due process under the Constitution.6 Louisiana Revised Statute section 13:3201(B), the Louisiana longarm statute, provides for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident on any basis consistent with the United States Constitution.7 Thus, a federal court may exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant to the full extent allowed under the fourteenth amendment.
The Supreme Court has established a two step inquiry to determine whether a nonresident defendant is subject to a district court's jurisdiction. First, the district court must consider whether the nonresident defendant purposefully established "minimum contacts" with the forum state such that maintenance of suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Second, even where minimum contacts exist, the court must consider whether requiring the defendant to litigate in the forum state would be unfair.8
A defendant's contacts with a forum state may support general or specific jurisdiction. General jurisdiction refers to a suit that does not arise from the nonresident's contact with the forum, and is asserted only over defendants who maintain continuous and systematic contacts in a particular forum. Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 415, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 1872, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984). Specific jurisdiction concerns a suit arising out of or related to a defendant's contacts with the forum state. Id. at 414 n. 8, 104 S.Ct. at 1872 n. 8.9
It is well settled that specific jurisdiction may arise without the nonresident defendant's ever stepping foot upon the forum state's soil or may arise incident to the commission of a single act directed at the forum. The appropriate inquiry is whether the defendant purposefully availed herself of the privilege of conducting activities in-state, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of the forum state's laws. Jurisdiction is improper if grounded in the unilateral activity of the plaintiff.
Buillion, 895 F.2d at 216 (citations and footnotes omitted).
Plaintiffs raise two separate bases for personal jurisdiction. First, they argue that defendant's employment recruitment contacts with Louisiana suffice to subject it to both the general and specific jurisdiction of this court. Next, plaintiffs rely on the activities of Moran Towing and Transportation Company's corporate parent and subsidiaries to support this court's exercise of general jurisdiction. Moran Towing and Transportation Company is, plaintiff alleges, the nucleus of the Moran Companies.10 Plaintiffs contend that personal jurisdiction exists because the parent corporation and the subsidiaries regularly build vessels and barges in Louisiana, and these vessels continuously transact business in Louisiana waters and the Gulf of Mexico.11
The primary basis of defendant's argument for dismissal is that it has not engaged in any type of business activity that creates reasonably foreseeable consequences in this state. Defendant argues that even if it has some business contacts with Louisiana, the contacts have no causal nexus to this suit, which it characterizes as an action based on working conditions aboard vessels in New York harbor. Thus, defendant argues that specific jurisdiction is unavailable as plaintiff's injuries do not arise out of or relate to its specific contacts with Louisiana.
Plaintiffs claim Moran Towing and Transportation Company's parent corporation and subsidiaries continuously conduct marine services in Louisiana and in waters adjacent to Louisiana, and therefore, this defendant is subject to this court's general jurisdiction. To support this theory of general jurisdiction, the plaintiffs must show that the activities of the parent and subsidiaries are attributable to Moran Towing and Transportation Company. Plaintiffs list several factors in support of their argument that the Moran entities are not separate and distinct for the purposes of jurisdiction.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morris v. Olympiakos
...with a forum state needed to subject a foreign defendant to the court's general jurisdiction. See Clark v. Moran Towing & Transportation Co., Inc., 738 F.Supp. 1023, 1028 (E.D.La.1990) (“Moran Towing and Transportation Company certainly has not submitted to this court's general jurisdiction......
-
Icon Indus. Controls Corp. v. Cimetrix, Inc.
...Waste Distillation Technology, Inc. v. Pan American Resources, Inc., 775 F.Supp. 759, 764 (D.Del. 1991); Clark v. Moran Towing & Transp. Co., 738 F.Supp. 1023, 1031 (E.D.La.1990); Southern Investors II v. Commuter Aircraft Corp., 520 F.Supp. 212, 219 There is authority for the proposition t......
-
Sarkar v. Petroleum Co. of Trinidad
...F. Supp. 313, 314-17 (W.D. Tex. 1980). Other cases cited in Morris are also distinguishable. In Clark v. Moran Towing & Transportation Co., Inc., 738 F. Supp. 1023, 1029-30 (E.D. La. 1990), and Runnels, 764F.2d at 417-18, the defendant advertised directly in the forum state by placing adver......
-
Anderson v. GlobalSantaFe Offshore Servs., Inc., Civil Action No. 11–812.
...jurisdiction based on a contract to supply goods in Louisiana and ongoing deals with a Louisiana buyer); Clark v. Moran Towing & Transp. Co., Inc., 738 F.Supp. 1023, 1030 (E.D.La.1990) (finding specific jurisdiction in Jones Act personal injury case based on employer's recruiting and hiring......