Horn v. Effort Shipping Co., Ltd., Civ. A. No. 89-0211-AH.
Decision Date | 13 November 1991 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 89-0211-AH. |
Citation | 777 F. Supp. 927 |
Parties | M.D. HORN and Lucy B. Horn, Plaintiffs, v. EFFORT SHIPPING CO., LTD., and Atlantis Marine, P.G., S.A., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama |
Mitchell G. Lattof, Lattof & Lattof, Mobile, Ala., for plaintiffs.
Abe Philips, Reams, Philips, Killion, Brooks, Schell, Gaston & Hudson, Mobile, Ala., for defendants.
This matter is before the Court on the question whether this Court may exercise in personam jurisdiction over the defendants. For the following reasons, this Court finds that the exercise of in personam jurisdiction over the defendants in this case is proper.
On March 21, 1989 this personal injury action was removed to this Court on the basis of both federal question and diversity jurisdiction. Doc. # 1 This action is a suit to recover damages arising out of an injury alleged to have been sustained by M.D. Horn while working as a longshoreman on board a ship owned by the defendant Effort Shipping Company ("Effort Shipping") and operated by the defendant Atlantis Marine P.G., S.A. ("Atlantis Marine"). Horn's wife, Lucy B. Horn, is suing for loss of consortium.
The facts of this case as revealed by the plaintiffs' complaint and Atlantis Marine's affidavit, construing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiffs where the two conflict, are as follows. In May of 1987, Mr. Horn was a longshoreman employed to load and unload cargo in the service of the M/V Rhapsody, a vessel moored in the Port of Mobile in the Southern District of Alabama. On May 12, Mr. Horn was descending a "Jacob's ladder" furnished by the Rhapsody's crew when it broke and sent him plummeting 20 feet into the hold of a barge moored adjacent to the Rhapsody. Horn suffered a fractured leg and foot from his fall, as well as multiple bruises, contusions and sprains, and claims that his injuries are permanent.
The Rhapsody is owned by Effort Shipping and at the time of the accident was chartered out to ATL (Project Carriers) Ltd. and operated by Atlantis Marine. Atlantis Marine, a Panamanian corporation, has its home office and principal place of business in Piraeus, Greece. Atlantis Marine's contacts with the United States are minimal.1 At the time of Mr. Horn's accident, Atlantis Marine was operating the Rhapsody pursuant to an agreement with Effort Shipping entered into outside the United States, and the vessel had come to the Port of Mobile at the direction of and in the performance of the business of the charterer, with whom Atlantis Marine has no relationship. Affidavit of Constantinos Tsatiris, Doc. # 37, pp. 3-4 The defendant Atlantis Marine has been dismissed from this action once already. On September 29, 1989 Atlantis Marine filed a "Motion to Quash Service of Process and to Dismiss" Doc. # 10. On December 26, 1989, this Court ordered the plaintiffs to respond to the motion by January 19, 1990. Doc. # 14 There was no response, and on January 29 this Court dismissed Atlantis Marine. Doc. # 16 On June 15, 1990, the plaintiffs filed a "Motion to Reverse Dismissal of Defendant, Atlantis Marine P.G., S.A." Doc. # 21, which the Court granted on August 9 Doc. # 22. On October 22, 1990, both Effort Shipping and Atlantis Marine answered the complaint. Docs. ## 25-26
On February 22, 1991, Magistrate Judge William E. Cassady ordered the parties to file briefs and affidavits on the issue of whether this Court has in personam jurisdiction over the defendants. In response to Judge Cassady's Order, Atlantis Marine filed an affidavit and brief on the personal jurisdiction issue on April 2, 1991, supplementing it on April 9. Doc. # 37. The plaintiffs responded on April 22. Doc. # 41 The defendant Effort Shipping has not filed a brief.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Madara v. Hall, 916 F.2d 1510 (11th Cir.1990), outlined the structure of this Court's analysis in determining personal jurisdiction issues:
The reach of the Alabama long-arm statute is equal to that of the Federal Constitution. Ala.R.Civ.P. 4.2(a)(2)(I). Therefore, the two questions of the personal jurisdiction analysis collapse into one and the only issue is whether a defendant has the "minimum contacts" with the state required for the assertion of personal jurisdiction by the Due Process Clause of the Federal Constitution as interpreted in International Shoe and its progeny.
The Due Process analysis regarding personal jurisdiction is a two-pronged inquiry. First, the Court must decide whether a defendant has established "minimum contacts" with the forum state. Second, if a defendant has established such minimum contacts, the Court must decide whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant is reasonable and would not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Madara, 916 F.2d at 1516.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has distilled the Supreme Court's holdings on the issue of "minimum contacts" into a jurisdictional homily. As the Eleventh Circuit explains:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brown v. Astron Enterprises, Inc., CV-96-N-1141-W.
...of the state long-arm statute is equal to that of the Federal Constitution. Ala. R. Civ. P. 4.2(a)(2)(I); Horn v. Effort Shipping Co., Ltd., 777 F.Supp. 927, 929 (S.D.Ala.1991); c.f. McDonnell v. Roy E. Beatty & Assoc., Inc., 203 Ga.App. 807, 418 S.E.2d 95, 96-98 (1992) (construing Georgia ......
-
Mercantile Capital, Lp v. Federal Transtel, Inc.
...to the Constitution. Ala. R. Civ. P. 4.2(a)(2)(I); Martin v. Robbins, 628 So.2d 614, 617 (Ala.1993); Horn v. Effort Shipping Co., Ltd., 777 F.Supp. 927, 929 (S.D.Ala.1991)." Ruiz de Molina, supra. The Due Process Clause, in turn, requires that a non-resident defendant has "certain minimum c......
-
Morgan v. North Ms Medical Center, Inc.
...controversies and the shared interest of the states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies." Horn v. Effort Shipping Co., Ltd., 777 F.Supp. 927, 931 (S.D.Ala.1991) (citations 7. In the course of its argument that venue is improper, NMMC protests that this forum "will prove to......
-
Ruiz de Molina v. Merritt & Furman Ins. Agency
...to the Constitution. Ala. R. Civ. P. 4.2(a)(2)(I); Martin v. Robbins, 628 So.2d 614, 617 (Ala.1993); Horn v. Effort Shipping Co., Ltd., 777 F.Supp. 927, 929 (S.D.Ala.1991). The Due Process Clause permits a court to summon a nonresident to defend himself in the forum so long as that person h......