## Facts

- The M/V MSC Carla was lengthened in 1984 at Hyundai Mipo Dockyard Co., Ltd. (HMD) by inserting a mid-body section requiring welds between the original hull and the insert.
- More than a decade later, while crossing the Atlantic from Le Havre to Boston, the vessel broke in half when a seam between the original hull and the insert split, causing the loss of hundreds of containers.
- The vessel owner and bareboat charterer commenced a limitation of liability proceeding in the Southern District of New York arising from the casualty.
- Approximately 1,000 cargo claimants filed claims in the limitation proceeding; some asserted third-party claims against HMD for the cargo losses.
- While the limitation proceeding was pending, HMD filed a declaratory judgment action in Korea seeking a declaration of non-liability and served only three U.S. cargo interests.
- The three served cargo interests moved in the Southern District of New York to enjoin HMD from pursuing the Korean declaratory action against them.
- The district court issued an antisuit injunction and concluded (1) it had personal jurisdiction over HMD based on forum contacts and (2) HMD had forfeited any personal-jurisdiction objection by engaging in discovery and other pretrial activity.
- HMD appealed, challenging the injunction, the finding of forfeiture, and the denial of a pre-injunction evidentiary hearing on personal jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. Whether HMD forfeited or waived its lack-of-personal-jurisdiction defense by its conduct and timing in the limitation proceeding.
2. If the defense was not forfeited, whether disputed jurisdictional facts required a pre-injunction evidentiary hearing before the court could enjoin HMD from pursuing the Korean action.
3. Whether the court could reach the propriety of the antisuit injunction without first resolving personal jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit vacated the antisuit injunction and remanded.
- The court held the record did not permit it to determine whether HMD forfeited its personal-jurisdiction defense.
- The court held that if the defense was not forfeited, an evidentiary hearing was required because material facts relevant to personal jurisdiction were disputed.
- The court declined to decide whether an antisuit injunction was substantively proper, because personal jurisdiction is a threshold requirement.
- The case was remanded for an evidentiary hearing on forfeiture/waiver and, if necessary, an evidentiary hearing on personal jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- A federal court must have personal jurisdiction over a defendant before issuing an antisuit injunction restraining that defendant’s foreign litigation.
- Waiver or forfeiture of a personal-jurisdiction defense depends on the defendant’s conduct and the timing of its objection; a finding of forfeiture must rest on a sufficiently developed record.
- When material facts bearing on personal jurisdiction are genuinely disputed and the court’s power to grant injunctive relief turns on those facts, an evidentiary hearing is required before issuing the injunction.
- Appellate review of an antisuit injunction may be deferred where unresolved jurisdictional predicates could independently defeat the injunction.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit vacated an antisuit injunction against a foreign shipyard because the district court had not adequately established personal jurisdiction or a clear forfeiture of the jurisdictional defense, and it required evidentiary hearings to resolve disputed jurisdictional and waiver facts before injunctive relief could be sustained.


In re Rationis Enters., Inc. of Pan., 261 F.3d 264 (2d Cir. 2001)