Mayhem Crude, Inc. v. Borrelli Walsh Pte. Ltd.
4:19-cv-04622
N.D. Cal.Apr 20, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Mayhem Crude, Inc. (Marshall Islands) owned the tanker V8 STEALTH and chartered it to SSIPL (Singapore) under a bareboat charter.
- Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) made a $75M loan to SGSTP secured by a pledge of SSIPL shares owned by Pasira (BVI); after default SCB enforced the pledge and appointed Borrelli Walsh and its directors as administrative receivers/directors of SSIPL in Aug 2016.
- Plaintiff alleges it was not notified of the change in ownership; the receivers continued to operate the Vessel worldwide and redelivered the Vessel to California in Dec 2016, allegedly concealing the receivership and the Vessel’s damaged condition.
- Borrelli Walsh (Singapore) and individual directors (Australia/Hong Kong/Singapore) and SCB (England) moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and, alternatively, on forum non conveniens grounds; SCB joined Borrelli Walsh’s motions.
- A Singapore liquidation of SSIPL is ongoing; Plaintiff asserts a conversion claim against the defendants in U.S. district court in California.
- The Court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and, alternatively, on forum non conveniens, and denied leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction (specific) | Contacts with California (redelivery, emails about redelivery and inspections) suffice for purposeful direction in admiralty conversion claim | Relevant acts, relationships, and decision-making occurred in Singapore/UK/BVI; defendants lack meaningful contacts with California | Dismissed for lack of specific jurisdiction: plaintiff failed to show claim arose out of defendants’ California contacts; allegations contradicted by defendants’ declarations |
| Forum non conveniens | Singapore may be inadequate (alleged conflicts of interest, insolvency transparency concerns) | Singapore is an adequate alternative forum; key witnesses and evidence are abroad; trial in U.S. would be burdensome | In the alternative, dismissed on forum non conveniens: Singapore adequate; private and public interest factors favor Singapore |
| Jurisdictional discovery | Plaintiff requested limited jurisdictional discovery to prove contacts | Defendants showed specific denials and declarations; plaintiff’s allegations were attenuated | Denied: no entitlement to discovery where allegations are bare and contradicted; defects not curable by amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (establishes minimum contacts due process standard for personal jurisdiction)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (limits on asserting jurisdiction over nonresident defendants)
- Pac. Atl. Trading Co. v. M/V Main Exp., 758 F.2d 1325 (9th Cir. 1985) (Fifth Amendment due process governs personal jurisdiction in admiralty cases)
- Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2006) (plaintiff bears burden to demonstrate personal jurisdiction)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (requires a connection between the forum and the specific claims)
- Dole Food Co. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2002) (standard for forum non conveniens dismissal)
- Getz v. Boeing Co., 654 F.3d 852 (9th Cir. 2011) (limits on jurisdictional discovery when allegations are attenuated and contradicted)
- Creative Tech., Ltd. v. Aztech Sys. Pte., Ltd., 61 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 1995) (recognizes Singapore as an adequate alternative forum)