Porina v. Marward Shipping Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
521 F.3d 122, 208 AMC 913 (2008)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
The Astrida was a Latvian fishing vessel that sank in the Baltic Sea, resulting in the loss of six crew members. The owners of the Astrida and the deceased crew’s representatives (collectively, the Astrida representatives) (plaintiffs) brought suit in federal district court against Marward Shipping Co. (Marward) (defendant), alleging that Marward’s ship the Vladimir had struck the Astrida, causing the Astrida to sink. Marward was a Cypriot company and had purchased the Vladimir six weeks prior to the loss of the Astrida. At the time of the purchase, the Vladimir was subject to a charter in which the chartering party at its sole discretion was entitled to bring the vessel to any port in the world. The chartering party ran the Vladimir consistently between ports in the United States and Russia. Marward had no control over the vessel’s movements. After the suit was brought, Marward denied that the Vladimir had had any contact with the Astrida but also moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion, holding that the Astrida representatives had failed to prove that Marward had sufficient contacts with the United States to justify asserting personal jurisdiction over Marward. The Astrida representatives appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Calabresi, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
