Claims For Wrongful Seizure Of Maritime Vessel Overseas Dismissed For Want Of Personal Jurisdiction

On September 3, 2024, Justice Joel M. Cohen granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, for want of personal jurisdiction, an action seeking damages for the allegedly wrongful overseas seizure of plaintiff’s maritime vessel, the Auzonia. The case is Amelia Maritime Group Ltd. v. Integr8 Fuels America LLC et al., Index No. 152882/2024.

As alleged in the complaint, defendant Integr8 Fuels twice caused the Auzonia to be seized based on plaintiff’s alleged failure to pay certain fuel bills due under a contract with the vessel’s prior owner. After a court in Rotterdam found the first seizure to be wrongful under U.S law and awarded plaintiff damages, Integr8 Fuels caused the Auzonia to be seized again, while it was undergoing repairs in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Plaintiff brought suit for damages arising from the second seizure, asserting claims for tortious interference and conversion. Integr8 Fuels, a foreign corporation with no other identified contacts with New York, was alleged to be subject to personal jurisdiction as an alter ego of Integr8 America, an affiliate incorporated in Delaware and registered to do business in New York State. Justice Cohen found personal jurisdiction lacking as to both defendants and granted their motion to dismiss.

While defendants’ moving affidavit confirmed “that Intregr8 America does transact some business in the State [of New York], there are no allegations suggesting that such business is so constant and pervasive ‘as to render [Integr8 America] essentially home in the forum State’" as necessary to establish general jurisdiction. Slip op., p. 4, quoting Daimler AG v Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 122 (2014). Plaintiff’s reliance on Mallory v Norfolk S. Ry., 600 U.S. 122 (2023), which found a state statute “that permits a foreign corporation to register to do business on the condition that it consents to jurisdiction based on such registration . . .sufficient to meet the due process requirement of personal jurisdiction;” was “misplaced”, “because New York's Business Corporation Law's statutes do not contain any [such] language’”. Id., p. 5.

While plaintiff did not attempt to argue specific jurisdiction, the Court determined that its allegations were insufficient had it attempted to do so.

“The allegedly wrongful arrests on which Plaintiff bases its lawsuit were carried out in the Netherlands and the UAE, and the marine fuel oil supply took place in Thailand . . . The sole connection to New York is that Integr8 America maintains a trading office in New York with one fuel oil trader . . ., but this allegation, standing alone, fails to make any litigation-specific connection to New York . . ..” Id., p. 6.

Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning personal jurisdiction over non-New York entities.