53 F.4th 890
5th Cir.2022Background
- Peter Wojcikowski, a seaman employed by Maersk Line, Ltd. (MLL), was injured aboard an MLL vessel in Bahrain and later returned to the U.S.; he subsequently died by suicide.
- Stacy Seville, as personal representative, filed a Jones Act negligence suit in the Eastern District of Louisiana (EDLA) asserting the Bahrain injury proximately caused the death.
- MLL moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue; Seville did not contest the jurisdictional argument but asked the court to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Virginia under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
- The district court granted MLL’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion, dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, and denied the requested § 1406(a) transfer; Seville appealed.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, concluding EDLA had neither general nor specific jurisdiction over MLL and that transfer would reward counsel’s lack of diligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EDLA had personal jurisdiction over MLL (general jurisdiction) | MLL does business in Louisiana, so venue and jurisdiction proper | MLL is incorporated in Delaware and principal place of business in Virginia; not "at home" in Louisiana | No general jurisdiction: MLL not at home in Louisiana; plaintiff offered no basis for an exceptional general-jurisdiction finding |
| Whether EDLA had personal jurisdiction over MLL (specific jurisdiction) | Complaint alleged business in LA; venue proper | Claim arises from events in Bahrain and is unrelated to any LA contacts | No specific jurisdiction: plaintiff failed to connect the Bahrain incident to MLL's forum contacts |
| Whether transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to a proper district was warranted | Transfer to E.D. Va. should be allowed (plaintiff sought transfer rather than dismissal) | Plaintiff's counsel filed in a forum with no colorable basis and could have foreseen the problem; transfer would reward lack of diligence | Transfer denial affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion; transfer would reward counsel's knowingly improper filing |
| Whether counsel's admissions raised Rule 11 concerns | Counsel suggested personal-jurisdiction objections might be waived and relied on potential transfer | Counsel had no colorable basis for venue/jurisdiction representations | Court held such admissions give rise to Rule 11 violations (i.e., counsel certified no colorable basis yet filed anyway) |
Key Cases Cited
- BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017) (paradigms for general corporate jurisdiction)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (specific jurisdiction requires defendant's forum contacts be related to the suit)
- Monkton Ins. Servs., Ltd. v. Ritter, 768 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 2014) (three-prong specific-jurisdiction test adopted in Fifth Circuit)
- Frank v. P N K (Lake Charles) LLC, 947 F.3d 331 (5th Cir. 2020) (difficulty of establishing general jurisdiction outside domicile/principal place)
- Dubin v. United States, 380 F.2d 813 (5th Cir. 1967) (courts may deny transfer under § 1406 to avoid rewarding non-diligent plaintiffs)
- Stanifer v. Brannan, 564 F.3d 455 (6th Cir. 2009) (district court's broad discretion to deny transfer when no arguable basis for venue)
- Coté v. Wadel, 796 F.2d 981 (7th Cir. 1986) (elementary prudence required to protect against filing in an improper forum)