Perforaciones Maritimas Maxics. v. Seacor Holdings

• Decision Date: 21 July 2006
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. G-05-419.
• Citation: 443 F.Supp.2d 825
• Parties: PERFORACIONES MARITIMAS MEXICANAS S.A. DE C.V., et al., Plaintiffs, v. SEACOR HOLDINGS, INC., Seacor Marine Mexico, Inc., Grupo TMM, S.A., and Maritimas Mexicana S.A. de C.V., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

443 F.Supp.2d 825

PERFORACIONES MARITIMAS MEXICANAS S.A. DE C.V., et al., Plaintiffs, v. SEACOR HOLDINGS, INC., Seacor Marine Mexico, Inc., Grupo TMM, S.A., and Maritimas Mexicana S.A. de C.V., Defendants.

Civil Action No. G-05-419.

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Galveston Division.

July 21, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Julia M. Adams, Westmoreland Hall, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs.

James T. Brown, Legge Farrow et al., Timothy Wayne Strickland, Fowler Rodriguez et al., Houston, TX, for Defendants.

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS

KENT, District Judge.

This case arises out of an allision between the M/V ISLA AZTECA ("AZTCA"), a Mexican flag vessel, and the MODU TOTONACA, a drilling rig located in the Bay of Campeche, Mexico. Now before the Court are Defendant Seacor Holding, Inc.'s ("Seacor") Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim or, in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant Seacor's First Amended Motion to Dismiss Based on Principles of International Comity, or, in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss Based on Plaintiff's Lack of Standing, Defendant Seacor's Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens, and Defendants Grupo TMM, S.A. ("TMM") and Maritima Mexicana, S.A. de C.V.'s ("MarMex") Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, or, in the Alternative Forum Non Conveniens, or, in the Alternative, International Comity. For the reasons stated below: Seacor's Motion to Dismiss for Plaintiff Perforaciones Exploracion y Produccion's Lack of Standing is DENIED AS MOOT. TMM and MarMex's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction is DENIED. Seacor's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is DENIED AS MOOT, and its Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs' claims against Seacor and Seacor Marine Mexico, Inc. ("SMMI") are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Seacor's Motions to Dismiss for Principles of International Comity and Forum Non Coveniens are DENIED AS MOOT. TMM and MarMex's Motions to Dismiss for Principles of International Comity and Forum Non Conveniens are DENIED.¹

I. Background

This case arises out of the March 31, 2004 allision between the AZTECA, a Mexican flag supply vessel, and the TOTNACA, a mobile drilling rig located in the Bay of Campeche that appears to have been fixed at the time of the accident, within the territorial waters of Mexico. The AZTECA was owned and operated by MarMex, a Mexican shipping company. MarMex is 60% owned by TMM, and, at the time of the incident giving rise to this lawsuit, 40% owned by either Seacor or SMMI.² TMM is also a Mexican entity. The domiciles and principal places of business of TMM and MarMex are in Mexico. The TOTONACA was owned by Perforaciones Maritimas Mexicanas S.A. de C.V. ("PMM").

On May 6, 2004, MarMex filed an Ex Parte Declaratory Judgment Proceeding against Perforaciones Maritimas Protexa S.A. de C.V. (PMM's predecessor) based on the International Convention on Limitation of Liability Arisen from Maritime Law Claims, ratified by Mexico on August 9, 1994. On May 10, 2004, the Sixth District Court in Civil Matters in the Federal District in Mexico denied MarMex's request, and MarMex appealed. On October 27, 2004, the Sixth District Court vacated its earlier ruling and entered an Order granting `MarMex's request for relief. That Court ordered service of MarMex's Original Petition, exhibits and Order on Perforaciones Exploracion y Produccion ("Protexa"), PMM and Pemex Exploracion y Produccion. This action is still pending in Mexico.

On May 7, 2004, PMM filed a "Criminal Complaint" with the Investigating Prosecutor's Office in Ciudad del Carmen, Campeche, against MarMex for damages arising from the allision. This criminal proceeding was ultimately dismissed.

On July 28, 2005, Protexa and Certain Reinsuring Underwriters Subscribing to the Reinsurance Contract Policy No. AHE-030044 as Amended to Policy No. AHE-004004 ("Underwriters") filed suit against Seacor, TMM, and MarMex for damages sustained by the AZTECA during the allision. On July 14, 2006, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint substituted PMM for Protexa, since it is undisputed that PMM is the real party in interest, and it also added SMMI as a defendant. The Amended Complaint also eliminated the cause of action for use of a dangerous weapon pursuant to Article 1913 of the Federal Civil Code of Mexico, so the only claims remaining arise under the admiralty and maritime laws of the United States.

Now before the Court are several motions to dismiss, referenced above. As manifested by the titles of the aforementioned Motions, many of the issues raised by the individual Defendants overlap with one another. Therefore, the Motions will be considered jointly, and each ground for dismissal will be discussed once.³

II. Plaintiff Protexa's Lack of Standing

Seacor originally moved to dismiss on the ground that Protexa lacked standing to sue.⁴ In its Motion, it argued that Protexa was not the true party in interest because is did not own the TOTONACA and was not a party to the drilling contract between PMM (the rig owner) and Pemex. PMM was the actual owner of the TOTNACA. Recently, Plaintiffs realized the error in their pleadings, and filed for leave to amend their Complaint. On July 14, 2006, Plaintiffs were given leave to amend, and have since filed their Amended Complaint, which substituted PMM for Protexa. At this time, it appears that all of the proper Parties have been named, and the dispute over the proper plaintiff has been resolved. Therefore, Seacor's Motion to Dismiss on the ground that Protexa lacks standing to sue is DENIED AS MOOT.

III. Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

A. Legal Standard

District courts are powerless to exercise jurisdiction in excess of the limited jurisdiction statutorily conferred upon them by Congress. See Margin v. Sea-Land Servs., Inc., 812 F.2d 973, 976 (5th Cir. 1987). A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when a court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case. See Strain v. Harrelson Rubber Co., 742 F.2d 888, 889 (5th Cir.1984). If the defendant subsequently challenges the plaintiff's stated basis for jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists. See Harvey Const. Co. v. Robertson-CECO Corp., 10 F.3d 300, 303 (5th Cir. 1994); Margin, 812 F.2d at 976. A court's consideration of such jurisdictional disputes should, however, focus only on discerning "some discreet jurisdiction requisite," as indicated by the facts alleged in the plaintiff's complaint; the inquiry should not address the merits of the plaintiff's claim. Green v. Ferrell, 664 F.2d 1292, 1294 (5th Cir.1982).

B. Analysis

In their Motion to Dismiss, TMM and MarMex contend that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims. They argue that because the allision did not occur on the navigable waters of the United States, but in Mexican waters in the Bay of Campeche, this case does not fall within the Court's admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. The Court respectfully disagrees.

The claims asserted are basic tort claims that fall within the scope of this Court's admiralty jurisdiction. "[A] party seeking to invoke federal admiralty jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1) over a tort claim must satisfy conditions both of location and of connection with maritime activity." Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527, 534, 115 S.Ct. 1043, 1048, 130 L.Ed.2d 1024 (1995). Thus, the injury or incident must have occurred on navigable waters, and the general character of the activity giving rise to the incident must bear a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity. Id. at 534, 115 S.Ct. at 1051. See also Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358, 110 S.Ct. 2892, 111 L.Ed.2d 292 (1990); Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249, 93 S.Ct. 493, 34 L.Ed.2d 454 (1972). An allision between a vessel and a drilling rig on navigable waters clearly satisfies both requirements for the exercise of admiralty tort jurisdiction. See Kim v. Frank Mohn A/S, 909 F.Supp. 474, 476-77 (S.D.Tex.1995) (finding admiralty and maritime jurisdiction even though plaintiff and defendant were citizens of foreign countries and the vessel was foreign-owned and foreign-flagged). TMM and MarMex's argument that a tort must have occurred on the navigable waters of the United States to fall within this Court's admiralty and maritime jurisdiction is unpersuasive. In support of their argument, they rely upon the Supreme Court's decision in Victory Carriers, Inc. v. Law, 404 U.S. 202, 92 S.Ct. 418, 30 L.Ed.2d 383 (1971). In that case, the Supreme Court stated, in dicta, that "[t]he historic view of this Court has been that the maritime tort jurisdiction of the federal courts is determined by the locality of the accident and that maritime law governs only those torts occurring on the navigable waters of the United States." Id. at 205, 92 S.Ct. at 421 (emphasis added). Victory Carriers considered the question whether state law or federal maritime law governs the suit of a longshoreman injured on a pier while moving cargo destined to be loaded on a ship. See id. at 202-03, 92 S.Ct. at 420. It did not involve questions of the applicability of maritime jurisdiction to accidents on foreign waters. Furthermore, the test for maritime and admiralty jurisdiction laid out in Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. only requires that the tort occur on "navigable waters" rather than the "navigable waters of the United States." See Grubart, 513 U.S. at 534, 115 S.Ct. 1043.

The Fifth Circuit has not provided a clear answer to this question. Recently, the Third Circuit noted that "a tort need not have occurred in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States for us to exercise admiralty...