Sierra v. Trafigura Trading, LLC, 1:22-cv-00366

Plaintiffs, all U.S. citizens or representatives of U.S. nationals’ estates, alleged that property interests in Cuban mining operations confiscated by the Cuban government in 1961 were wrongfully trafficked by defendants.
Plaintiffs asserted claims under the Helms-Burton Act (Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996) against Trafigura Group Pte. Ltd. (TGPL, a Singapore company) and its U.S. subsidiary for trafficking in the confiscated property.
TGPL moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), among other grounds; defendants also opposed jurisdictional discovery.
The key dispute is whether the Delaware federal court can exercise either general or specific personal jurisdiction over TGPL under Federal Rule 4(k)(2), the federal long-arm statute.
Plaintiffs support jurisdiction primarily by alleging TGPL’s U.S.-directed financing linked to Cuban operations, and derivative benefits to its U.S. subsidiary from the activities in Cuba; Defendants countered with evidence refuting any U.S. nexus.
The court granted TGPL’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied plaintiffs' request for jurisdictional discovery, but permitted amendment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Specific Jurisdiction—U.S. Financing	TGPL raised funds in U.S. to support mining (EMINCAR) linked to confiscated property	No funds from U.S. placements were used for Cuba/EMINCAR; presented declarations refuting link	No purposeful availment; no U.S. link to EMINCAR
Specific Jurisdiction—U.S. Benefits	U.S. subsidiary, TTL, benefits from global zinc trade involving EMINCAR production	EMINCAR offtake not sold to U.S. or through U.S. entities; no evidence of benefits accruing	No direct/related contact with the U.S. established
General Jurisdiction (Rule 4(k)(2))	TGPL’s U.S. activities and TTL’s contacts are attributable to TGPL (via agency/alter ego)	Parent-subsidiary relationship insufficient; corporate separateness maintained	Not "at home" in U.S.; no exceptional circumstances
Jurisdictional Discovery Entitlement	Insufficient facts now, but discovery might show U.S. contacts	No prima facie showing made; declarations sufficient and undisputedly refute jurisdiction	Denied; insufficient showing to merit discovery

Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (sets out the minimum contacts requirement for personal jurisdiction)
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (general jurisdiction only where corporation is essentially at home)
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (delineates general versus specific jurisdiction)
Mellon Bank (E.) PSFS, Nat’l Ass’n v. Farino, 960 F.2d 1217 (3d Cir. 1992) (plaintiff bears prima facie burden of showing jurisdiction)
Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351 (2021) (limits scope of general jurisdiction to exceptional circumstances)
Trinity Indus., Inc. v. Greenlease Holding Co., 903 F.3d 333 (3d Cir. 2018) (alter ego theory for jurisdiction extends only to abuse of corporate form)