Francosteel Corporation, Unimetal-Normandy v. M/V Charm, Tiki, Mortensen & Lange

• Decision Date: 22 April 1994
• Docket Number: No. 93-8957,93-8957
• Citation: 19 F.3d 624
• Parties: FRANCOSTEEL CORPORATION, Unimetal-Normandy, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. M/V CHARM, her engines, boilers, tackle, furniture, apparel, etc., in rem, P/R Tiki, Mortensen & Lange, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 624

19 F.3d 624

1994 A.M.C. 1942

FRANCOSTEEL CORPORATION, Unimetal-Normandy, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. M/V CHARM, her engines, boilers, tackle, furniture, apparel etc., in rem, P/R Tiki, Mortensen & Lange Defendants-Appellees.

No. 93-8957.

United States Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit.

April 22, 1994.

Edwin D. Robb, Jr., Bouhan, Williams & Levy, Walter Charlton Hartridge, II, Carlton Edward Joyce, Savannah, GA, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Robert Strudwick Glenn, Jr., Hunter, Maclean, Exley & Dunn, Savannah, GA, Mark C. Flavin, Haight, Gardner, Poor & Havens, Michael A. Bilavsky, James H. Hohenstein, New York City, for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.

Before HATCHETT and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and ESCHBACH ^*, Senior Circuit Judge.

DUBINA, Circuit Judge:

Appellants-plaintiffs Francosteel Corporation ("Francosteel") and Unimetal-Normandie ("Unimetal") appeal the district court's judgment of dismissal of their lawsuit for lack of in personam jurisdiction over appellees-defendants M/V Charm ("the Charm"), P/R Tiki ("Tiki"), and Mortensen & Lange ("Mortensen").

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Francosteel is a corporation organized under the laws of New York with its principal place of business in New York City. Unimetal is a French corporation with its principal place of business in Caen, France. Francosteel purchased a quantity of steel wire rods from Unimetal to be delivered to Savannah, Georgia and Jacksonville, Florida. In order to transport the shipment of rods, Unimetal subchartered a cargo vessel, the Charm, from the vessel's charterer, General Shipping & Chartering, Rotterdam ("GSC"). GSC had itself chartered the vessel from its owner Tiki, a Danish shipping partnership based in Holte, Denmark, pursuant to a charter agreement. The charter agreement between GSC and Tiki anticipated that the Charm would transport steel rods from Caen, France to Savannah and Jacksonville. Mortensen, a Danish partnership established under the laws of Denmark and with its principal place of business in Holte, Denmark, was the Charm's manager.

In November 1992, the Charm arrived in port in Caen, France to receive the cargo of rods. On November 19, 1992, four bills of lading were issued, with two listing Savannah as the discharge point and two listing Jacksonville. The bills list Unimetal as the shipper and Francosteel as the consignee, and were signed by the "Master or Agent" of the Charm. On November 20, 1992, the cargo of rods was loaded aboard the Charm and the vessel set sail. On November 24, 1992, the Charm sank, and both vessel and cargo were a total loss.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Francosteel and Unimetal brought the present admiralty and maritime action under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 46 U.S.C. Secs. 1300-1315 (1988), against Tiki and Mortensen, in personam, and against the Charm, in rem, alleging that (1) the Charm was unseaworthy, (2) Tiki and the Charm breached a contract of carriage and maintained an unseaworthy vessel, and (3) Mortensen, as the vessel's manager, was negligent in failing to maintain a seaworthy vessel. Tiki and Mortensen filed a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2). Specifically, they argued that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over them and in the alternative that the action should not proceed on the basis of forum non conveniens. Francosteel and Unimetal filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of personal jurisdiction. Finding that it lacked both general and specific personal jurisdiction over Tiki and Mortensen and in rem jurisdiction over the Charm, the district court dismissed the action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

Francosteel and Unimetal raise only one issue on appeal: whether the district court erred in dismissing the action for lack of specific personal jurisdiction over Tiki and Mortensen.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This court has authority to review de novo the district court's dismissal for lack of in personam jurisdiction. Vermeulen v. Renault, U.S.A., Inc., 965 F.2d 1014, 1016 (11th Cir.1992), modified and superseded by, 985 F.2d 1534 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 2334, 124 L.Ed.2d 246 (1993). Where, as here, the district court did not conduct an evidentiary hearing on the jurisdictional issue, the plaintiffs-appellants need only make out a prima facie case of jurisdiction. Id. A prima facie case is established if the plaintiffs-appellants present sufficient evidence to defeat a motion for directed verdict. Id. at 1016-17. In assessing a motion for directed verdict,

[d]istrict and appellate courts should consider all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the nonmover. If the facts and inferences are so strong that the court believes that reasonable persons in the exercise of impartial judgment could not arrive at a contrary verdict, the district court properly grants a directed verdict or j.n.o.v. If, however, the evidence is such that "reasonable and fairminded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions," it is improper for the district court to grant a directed verdict or j.n.o.v MacPherson v. University of Montevallo, 922 F.2d 766, 770 (11th Cir.1991) (citations omitted).

IV. ANALYSIS

Georgia's long arm statute confers in personam jurisdiction to the maximum extent allowed by the due process clause of the federal Constitution. Vermeulen, 965 F.2d at 1021-22; Complete Concepts, Ltd. v. General Handbag Corp., 880 F.2d 382, 388 (11th Cir.1989); First United Bank of Mississippi v. First National Bank of Atlanta, 255 Ga. 505, 340 S.E.2d 597, 599 (1986). The district court held that it could not constitutionally exercise either general or specific in personam jurisdiction over Tiki and Mortensen. In this appeal, Francosteel and Unimetal challenge the district court's holding as to specific jurisdiction only. Thus, the question presented is whether the exercise of specific in personam jurisdiction over Tiki and Mortensen complies with the due process requirements of the federal Constitution.

In personam jurisdiction complies with due process when (1) the nonresident defendant has purposefully established minimum contacts with the forum state, and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction will not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. See International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1239, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958); World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S.Ct. 559, 567, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980). Because the district court found that minimum contacts were lacking, it did not address the fairness prong of the due process test.

To constitute minimum contacts for purposes of specific jurisdiction,

the defendant's contacts with the applicable forum must satisfy three criteria. First, the contacts must be related to the plaintiff's cause of action or have given rise to it. Second, the contacts must involve "some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum ..., thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws." Third, the defendant's contacts with the forum must be "such that [the defendant] should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there."

Vermeulen, 985 F.2d at 1546. The availability of specific jurisdiction depends on the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation. Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp. v. Lovett & Tharpe, Inc., 786 F.2d 1055, 1057 (11th Cir.1986).

In this case, the only possible contact with Georgia from which this cause of action could arise is a contract of carriage between Unimetal and Tiki that allegedly resulted when the Master of the Charm signed the bills of lading. ¹ For purposes of our analysis, we will assume without deciding that the bills of lading created binding contracts between Unimetal and Tiki for delivery of the cargo in Georgia. The district court held that even if there were such a contract it would be insufficient to justify in personam jurisdiction in this case.

The Supreme Court has said the following regarding the use of a contract as a basis for in personam jurisdiction:

At the outset, we note a continued division among lower courts respecting whether and to what extent a contract can constitute a "contact" for purposes of due process analysis. If the question is whether an individual's contract with an out-of-state party alone can automatically establish sufficient minimum contacts in the other party's home forum, we believe the answer clearly is that it cannot. The Court long ago rejected the notion that personal jurisdiction might turn on "mechanical" tests or on "conceptualistic...