## Facts

- Riccardo G. Ciolino, a Massachusetts resident, worked for Keystone Shipping Co. and/or its subsidiary Keystone Management Services, Inc. (together, “Keystone”) as a merchant seaman on various vessels chartered or operated by Keystone over many years.
- Keystone was incorporated in Delaware and had its principal place of business in Pennsylvania.
- Ciolino first obtained work with Keystone after responding to a job posting through the National Maritime Union Boston Local, and Keystone arranged his travel from Boston to join a vessel.
- For later jobs, Keystone contacted Ciolino at his Massachusetts home regarding employment on Keystone ships.
- In 2019, Ciolino’s health declined and he was diagnosed with benign asbestos pleural effusion, which he attributed to asbestos exposure while serving aboard defendants’ vessels.
- Ciolino sued Keystone, Keystone Management, and several related shipping entities—Chesapeake Shipping, Inc.; Chilbar Shipping Company; Margate Shipping Company; and Keystates, Inc.—in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, asserting Jones Act negligence against Keystone, unseaworthiness claims, and maintenance-and-cure claims.
- Keystone, Chilbar, Margate, and Keystates moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2).
- Ciolino opposed dismissal and, as an alternative, requested limited jurisdictional discovery as to the defendants whose Massachusetts contacts were less developed on the existing record.
- The court applied the prima facie standard because the motions were decided without an evidentiary hearing.

## Issues

1. Whether the District of Massachusetts could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Keystone based on Keystone’s recruitment and employment of a Massachusetts seaman and the connection between those contacts and Ciolino’s asbestos-related injury claims.
2. Whether Ciolino was entitled to jurisdictional discovery before final resolution of personal jurisdiction as to Chilbar, Margate, and Keystates.

## Decision

- The court denied Keystone Shipping and Keystone Management’s motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The court concluded that Ciolino made a sufficient prima facie showing of specific personal jurisdiction over Keystone in Massachusetts based on Keystone’s Massachusetts-directed recruitment and employment contacts and the relationship of those contacts to Ciolino’s claims.
- The court allowed Ciolino’s request for jurisdictional discovery regarding Chilbar, Margate, and Keystates.
- The court denied without prejudice the motions to dismiss filed by Chilbar, Margate, and Keystates, permitting those defendants to renew their jurisdictional challenges after the limited discovery period.

## Legal Principles

- When a Rule 12(b)(2) motion is decided without an evidentiary hearing, the court applies the prima facie method: the plaintiff must make a colorable showing that personal jurisdiction exists based on properly supported facts.
- Specific personal jurisdiction requires (1) relatedness between the forum contacts and the claims, (2) purposeful availment (voluntary, forum-directed conduct making litigation there foreseeable), and (3) overall reasonableness consistent with fair play and substantial justice.
- Massachusetts personal jurisdiction analysis proceeds under the Massachusetts long-arm statute and federal due process; in many cases, the two inquiries are treated as closely aligned, but both must be satisfied.
- A defendant’s recruitment and hiring of an in-state resident through in-state channels, combined with repeated employment-related contacts directed to the resident in the forum, can constitute forum-directed conduct supporting specific jurisdiction when the claims arise from that employment relationship.
- Courts weigh reasonableness using factors including the burden on the defendant, the forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute, the plaintiff’s interest in convenient and effective relief, the judicial system’s interest in efficient resolution, and shared state interests.
- A plaintiff who has acted diligently and makes a colorable showing of jurisdiction may obtain limited jurisdictional discovery where key facts about the defendants’ contacts or interrelationships are in the defendants’ control.

## Conclusion

The court held that Massachusetts could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Keystone because Keystone repeatedly recruited and employed Ciolino through Massachusetts-based channels and directed employment-related contacts to his Massachusetts residence, and those contacts were sufficiently connected to the asbestos-exposure claims; as to other related shipping entities, the court permitted limited jurisdictional discovery and denied their dismissal motions without prejudice.


Ciolino v. Keystone Shipping Co., 2022 WL 425680 (2022)