Because of isolated and sporadic nature of calls made on US ports by defendants' vessels, lack of control defendants possessed over calls, and absence of other contacts with US in Asarco framework, defendants lacked requisite "continuous and systematic"
OLGA DE LEON; DAURYS BLADIMIL DE LEON; RAFAELA DE LEON; FRANKLIN ROA; JOSE GUERRERO MARTE; CRISTIAN ENCARNACION, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. SHIH WEI NAVIGATION COMPANY LTD; DONG LIEN MARITIME SA PANAMA, Defendants-Appellees
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 5464
March 13, 2008, Filed
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiffs, surviving stowaways and heirs of decedent stowaways, initiated an admiralty and maritime tort action seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly suffered by the stowaways. Plaintiffs appealed from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, challenging a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction over defendants.
OVERVIEW: The stowaways boarded a vessel in an ill-fated attempt to enter the United States (US) illegally. While the vessel was in international waters en route to Houston, Texas, the stowaways were discovered by the crew and then either left voluntarily on a raft or were forcibly thrown overboard by the crew. Considering the isolated and sporadic nature of the calls made on US ports by defendants' vessels, the lack of control defendants possessed over the calls, and the absence of any other contacts with the US in the Asarco framework, defendants lacked the requisite "continuous and systematic" contacts with the forum to support the exercise of general personal jurisdiction. Defendants' sole contacts with the forum were calls made on forum ports in the years preceding the incident at issue. Defendants were not licensed or authorized to do business in the US; they had never advertised or solicited any business in the US; they did not maintain a place of business or office in the US; they had no employees or agents located in the US; they had never maintained a telephone number or mailing address in the US; and they never owned, leased, or possessed any interest in property in the US.
OUTCOME: The dismissal was affirmed.
