829 F.3d 592
8th Cir.2016Background
- Blake Marine Group (Alabama resident) leased a barge with a crane to Mexican company Oceanografia on Jan 23, 2009; Oceanografia terminated the charter on Jan 29, 2009 after CarVal (Minnesota-based) emailed from Minnesota, asserting lack of CVI Lux consent.
- Blake learned by 2010 of facts it viewed as tortious interference and sued CarVal in New York state court in 2013, later voluntarily dismissing that suit.
- Blake filed a nearly identical tortious-interference action in federal court in Minnesota in January 2015 against CarVal and CVI Lux.
- Defendants moved to dismiss as time-barred; the district court applied Alabama’s two-year statute of limitations (rather than Minnesota’s six-year period) and dismissed.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding Minnesota choice-of-law principles pointed to application of Alabama law; admiralty/laches did not apply; fraudulent-concealment tolling was not sufficiently pleaded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law / limitations period | Minnesota’s 6-year limitations should apply because the tortious interference occurred in Minnesota and defendants are Minnesota-based; Minnesota has interest in compensating tort victims and holding residents accountable | Minnesota’s borrowing/choice rules point to applying the law of the plaintiff’s domicile (Alabama), whose interest in compensating its resident outweighs Minnesota’s interest | Applied Alabama’s 2-year statute; dismissal affirmed |
| Forum-shopping / interstate-order factor | Blake’s refile in Minnesota was not improper; Minnesota’s contacts (place of interference, defendant residency) justify applying Minnesota law | Defendants argued Blake forum-shopped (dismissed NY case, refiled in MN for longer limitations) and Alabama law should apply | Court found Minnesota’s interstate-order concern neutral; did not override Alabama’s greater interest |
| Admiralty jurisdiction / laches | Blake argued admiralty jurisdiction (injury tied to maritime operations) so laches could govern timeliness | Defendants argued tort did not occur on navigable waters and damages were economic and suffered on land | No admiralty jurisdiction: injury (economic loss) not sustained at sea; laches inapplicable |
| Fraudulent concealment tolling | Blake argued defendants fraudulently concealed facts, tolling Alabama’s two-year statute | Defendants argued no particularized pleading of concealment and Blake knew facts by 2010 | Tolling rejected: plaintiff knew of its claim by 2010 and failed to plead fraudulent concealment with particularity |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitney v. The Guys, Inc., 700 F.3d 1118 (8th Cir. 2012) (federal review standard and use of forum state choice-of-law rules)
- Jepson v. Gen. Cas. Co. of Wisconsin, 513 N.W.2d 467 (Minn. 1994) (interstate-order concern in Minnesota choice-of-law analysis)
- Nesladek v. Ford Motor Co., 46 F.3d 734 (8th Cir. 1995) (forum-shopping and contacts relevance in choice-of-law)
- Hughes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 250 F.3d 618 (8th Cir. 2001) (forum state’s limited interest in protecting nonresident tort victims)
- Kenna v. So-Fro Fabrics, Inc., 18 F.3d 623 (8th Cir. 1994) (compensation primarily concern of plaintiff’s domicile)
- Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1995) (admiralty tort test: location and relation to maritime activity)
- J. Lauritzen A/S v. Dashwood Shipping, Ltd., 65 F.3d 139 (9th Cir. 1995) (admiralty torts arise where injury occurs)
- Great Plains Trust Co. v. Union Pac. R. Co., 492 F.3d 986 (8th Cir. 2007) (economic damages arising off navigable waters weigh against admiralty jurisdiction)
- Serra Chevrolet, Inc. v. Edwards Chevrolet, Inc., 850 So.2d 259 (Ala. 2002) (elements of tortious interference under Alabama law)