Danny Patterson v. Aker Solutions Incorporated, et, 826 F.3d 231

Plaintiff Danny Patterson, a U.S. citizen, alleged a knee injury while working aboard a Luxembourg-flagged vessel off Russia and sued multiple companies in the Eastern District of Louisiana, later adding Aker Subsea (a Norwegian corporation).
Aker Subsea moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the district court allowed jurisdictional discovery and then dismissed Aker Subsea for lack of both specific and general personal jurisdiction.
Patterson sought Rule 54(b) certification of that dismissal and appealed the jurisdictional ruling under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 after certification.
Patterson argued the district court had general jurisdiction over Aker Subsea under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) based on eleven secondment agreements that temporarily sent Aker Subsea employees to an affiliated U.S. entity in Houston.
Aker Subsea’s contacts with the United States were limited to those eleven secondments; it was incorporated and had its principal place of business in Norway and maintained no U.S. offices, bank accounts, regular business operations, or litigation history in the U.S.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding the secondments were insufficient to render Aker Subsea “essentially at home” in the United States and therefore insufficient for general jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Aker Subsea is subject to general jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2)	Aker Subsea’s eleven secondment agreements sending employees to Houston created continuous and systematic U.S. contacts sufficient for Rule 4(k)(2) general jurisdiction	Aker Subsea lacked sustained or substantial U.S. operations; contacts limited to temporary secondments do not render it "at home" in the U.S.	Held: No; eleven secondments are insufficient to establish general jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2) because they do not make the corporation essentially at home in the United States.
Whether the secondments equate to a sustained business presence making Aker Subsea "at home" in the U.S.	Seconded employees performed work in the U.S. for an affiliate, showing a continuous presence	Secondments were temporary, employee remained employed by Aker Subsea in Norway, and Aker Subsea conducted no other U.S. business activities	Held: No; temporary employee secondments (eleven over three years) fall short of the exceptional-level contacts required (Perkins standard).

Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467 (5th Cir.) (plaintiff bears burden to present prima facie evidence of personal jurisdiction)
Submersible Sys., Inc. v. Perforadora Cent., S.A. de C.V., 249 F.3d 413 (5th Cir.) (Rule 4(k)(2) assessed under Fifth Amendment to consider contacts with the United States as a whole)
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S.) (general jurisdiction requires contacts so continuous and systematic as to render a corporation essentially at home)
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (U.S.) (forum for general jurisdiction is where corporation is ‘‘at home’’)
Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437 (U.S.) (rare ‘‘exceptional case’’ where corporation’s wartime operations made it subject to general jurisdiction)
System Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. M/V Viktor Kurnatovskiy, 242 F.3d 322 (5th Cir.) (example of substantial international contacts supporting national contacts analysis)
Adams v. Unione Mediterranea Di Sicurta, 364 F.3d 646 (5th Cir.) (foreign insurer’s extensive U.S. business contacts supported Rule 4(k)(2) jurisdiction)
Bowles v. Ranger Land Sys., Inc., [citation="527 F. App'x 319"] (5th Cir.) (employee presence alone insufficient for general jurisdiction)
Monkton Ins. Servs., Ltd. v. Ritter, 768 F.3d 429 (5th Cir.) (noting difficulty of establishing general jurisdiction outside place of incorporation or principal place of business)