Frisella v. Transoceanic Cable Ship Co.
| Decision Date | 11 January 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV.A.01-1855.,CIV.A.01-1855. |
| Parties | Charles FRISELLA v. TRANSOCEANIC CABLE SHIP COMPANY, et al |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Terrence Joseph Hand, Ronald E. Lampard, Hand & Lampard, Metairie, LA, for Plaintiff.
William E. O'Neil, Alanson Trigg Chenault, The O'Neil Group, LLC, New Orleans, LA, for Defendants.
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is defendant TCSC's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. For the reasons that follow, the motion is GRANTED.
Transoceanic Cable Ship Company is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in Maryland; it operates and manages a fleet of ships that lay underwater cable. Between 1997 and 2001, TCSC hired crew members through the Manpower Coordinator of the Seafarer's International Union under the terms of a "Cable Ship Agreement" between it and the SIU. This agreement established the SIU as TCSC's source of unlicensed crew members and established for TCSC a manpower pool. The SIU negotiates on behalf of its dues-paying members for collective bargaining agreements with prospective employers as well as other employment issues. TCSC did not pay the SIU to recruit seamen.
Charles Frisella is a Louisiana resident and member of the SIU. In October 2000 TCSC hired Frisella and other seamen through the SIU and the New Orleans Seafarer's Hall, to work aboard the C/S Global Sentinel. TCSC arranged and paid for Frisella's and other crew members' transportation from New Orleans to a foreign port.
Frisella hurt his back while aboard the Global Sentinel off the coast of Chile. TCSC's onboard nurse treated Frisella and the company arranged and paid for his transportation home to New Orleans. TCSC's nurse gave Frisella a medical referral requesting further medical examination and treatment. Finally, TCSC made three maintenance payments totalling $264 to Frisella while he was in Louisiana.1
Frisella filed this suit seeking damages for his injury and for maintenance and cure. Frisella's petition alleges that the actions of fellow crew members, apparently as the result of a practical joke, caused his injury. Frisella's complaint alleges that TCSC did business in Louisiana and failed to provide an adequate crew. TCSC filed this motion to dismiss, contending that it does not have sufficient minimum contacts with Louisiana to support this Court's assertion of personal jurisdiction over it. This Court agrees.
Personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant is proper if (1) the defendant is amenable to service of process under the forum state's long-arm statute and (2) the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant is consistent with due process. See Jones v. Petty-Ray Geophysical Geosource, Inc., 954 F.2d 1061, 1067 (5th Cir.1992). Because the Louisiana long-arm statute extends to the limits of constitutional due process, this Court need only consider whether personal jurisdiction over TCSC satisfies the Due Process Clause. See Simmons v. SeaTide International Inc., 693 F.Supp. 510, 513 (E.D.La. 1988); see also Dalton v. R & W Marine, Inc., 897 F.2d 1359, 1361 (5th Cir.1990). Constitutional due process is satisfied where the defendant has "minimum contacts" with the forum state and requiring the defendant to litigate in the state does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945); Asahi Metal Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court of California, 480 U.S. 102, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987). The nature and quality of these contacts must indicate that the defendant should have reasonably anticipated being sued in the forum state. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980); see also Petty-Ray, 954 F.2d at 1068.
Personal jurisdiction may be either specific or general. Specific jurisdiction exists if the defendant has purposely directed its activities toward the resident of the forum and the cause of action relates to such activities. Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985); Aviles v. Kunkle, 978 F.2d 201, 204 (5th Cir.1992). This inquiry focuses on whether the defendant "purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in-state, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of the forum state's laws," and jurisdiction may be proper even if the defendant has never set foot in the forum state. Bullion v. Gillespie, 895 F.2d 213, 216 (5th Cir.1990). General jurisdiction exists where the defendant has continuous and systematic contacts with the forum state, even though those contacts do not relate to the cause of action. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984). Frisella must make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction. Petty-Ray, 954 F.2d at 1067. Frisella's uncontroverted allegations must be taken as true, and all conflicts in the facts must be resolved in his favor. Asarco, Inc. v. Glenara, Ltd., 912 F.2d 784, 785 (5th Cir.1990).
If a defendant has sufficient contacts with the forum state, a court must then determine whether the assertion of jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial justice. This requires the consideration of (1) the burden on the defendant, (2) the forum state's interest in adjudicating the dispute, (3) the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief, (4) the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies, and (5) the shared interest of the several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies. Asahi Metal Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court of Cal., 480 U.S. 102, 113, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (1987). Once it is determined that a defendant has minimum contacts with the forum, he must present "a compelling case that the presence of some consideration would render jurisdiction unreasonable. Burger King, 471 U.S. at 477, 105 S.Ct. 2174.
This Court has decided several cases on similar facts and found no general personal jurisdiction. In Ricord v. Energy Transporation Co., 1993 WL 459937, 1993 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15639 (E.D.La.1993)(Schwartz, J.), this Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit where the defendant, ETC, hired seamen through the SIU's manpower pool and had no direct contacts with the forum state. Like TCSC in this case, ETC through its travel agent provided transportation for its employees from the United States to foreign ports. Further, ETC had engaged the plaintiff for employment in New Orleans fifteen times, had retained a New Orleans physician for examining seamen for claims, and made payments to Louisiana seamen in Louisiana for maintenance and cure and wages. ETC was also aware that SIU hired through the New Orleans hall. Nevertheless, the Court held that ETC's only significant contact with Louisiana was the fortuitous hiring of the plaintiff through the union. Id. 1993 WL 459937 at *3, 1993 U.S. Dist. Lexis at *7.
Similarly, in Carter v. Ocean Ships, Inc., 1990 WL 128207, 1990 U.S. Dist. Lexis 11440 (E.D.La.1990)(Carr, J.), this Court found personal jurisdiction lacking where the employer had hired numerous employees from Louisiana. And in Jones v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 1992 WL 38101, 1992 U.S. Dist. Lexis 1887 (E.D.La. 1992)(Sear, J.), this Court dismissed a seaman's complaint where the defendant had no contacts with Louisiana except that it notified the SIU of a job vacancy and provided the plaintiff's transportation from New Orleans to an offshore port. It is clear that, like the defendants in Ricord, Carter, and Jones, TCSC does not have the type of continuous and systematic contacts with Louisiana necessary to support general jurisdiction.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Chinese Manufactured Drywall Products Liab. Litig..This Document Relates To: Pate v. Am. Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. Co.
...defendant's hiring of employees in the forum is not sufficient to confer general personal jurisdiction. See Frisella v. Transoceanic Cable Ship Co., 181 F.Supp.2d 644 (E.D.La.2002)(finding no general personal jurisdiction although non-resident defendant hired forum employees); Ricord v. Ene......
-
Branstetter v. Holland Am. Line N.V.
...; Stewart v. Luedtke Eng'g Co., No. C 05-3467 SBA, 2006 WL 334644, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2006) ; Frisella v. Transoceanic Cable Ship Co., 181 F. Supp. 2d 644, 649 (E.D. La. 2002) ; Am. Overseas Marine Corp. v. Patterson, 632 So. 2d 1124, 1127 n.4 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994) ; Ortiz v. Wi......
-
Stec v. Fuzion Investment Capital, LLC
...Wyatt v. Walt Disney World, Co., 151 N.C.App. 158, 165, 565 S.E.2d 705, 710 (2002) (quoting Frisella v. Transoceanic Cable Ship Co., 181 F.Supp.2d 644, 647 (E.D.La. 2002)); Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 2854 (2011) (stating that when a court attempts to ex......
-
ADAMS, KLEEMEIER, HAGAN, HANNAH v. Jacobs
...and systematic contacts with the forum state[.]" Wyatt, 151 N.C.App. at 165, 565 S.E.2d at 710 (citing Frisella v. Transoceanic Cable Ship Co., 181 F.Supp.2d 644, 647 (E.D.La.2002)). In the instant case, plaintiff does not assert the presence of general jurisdiction, and we find no basis fo......