## Facts

- James Johnson and Robert Croke worked as seamen aboard the HIGH ISLAND VII, a mobile rig located about twelve miles off the coast of Nigeria.
- On November 8, 2010, Nigerian gunmen allegedly boarded the rig and took crew members hostage.
- Johnson alleged he was shot in the right leg during the hostage event, bled for hours before receiving care, underwent multiple surgeries, and could not return to work.
- Croke alleged he was beaten and shot in the foot, removed from the rig, held hostage for ten days, tortured, underwent surgeries, and suffered ongoing physical and emotional injuries.
- Plaintiffs alleged PPI and/or PSL employed them; Transocean owned and operated the rig; AFREN contracted to use the rig; and GSF (and, as to Croke, TODDI) supplied personnel responsible for safety and security on board.
- Plaintiffs alleged defendants knew or should have known of a high risk of armed attacks offshore Nigeria but failed to provide adequate security.
- Plaintiffs asserted general maritime law claims for negligence, unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure.
- After limited jurisdictional discovery, Transocean, Ltd. and GSF reurged a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. Whether the court could exercise personal jurisdiction over Transocean, Ltd. based on Louisiana contacts or nationwide contacts under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2).
2. Whether the court could exercise personal jurisdiction over GSF under Louisiana due process standards or Rule 4(k)(2) in a federal admiralty action arising from events offshore Nigeria.
3. Whether plaintiffs could attribute jurisdictional contacts to a foreign parent or affiliate through alter-ego, veil-piercing, or agency theories.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part.
- The court dismissed Transocean, Ltd. for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding insufficient forum contacts for general or specific jurisdiction and insufficient attributable nationwide contacts for Rule 4(k)(2).
- The court denied dismissal as to GSF, holding that Rule 4(k)(2) permitted personal jurisdiction because GSF had continuous and systematic contacts with the United States as a whole and exercising jurisdiction was consistent with due process.

## Legal Principles

- Personal jurisdiction requires minimum contacts such that exercising jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial justice.
- For federal claims, Rule 4(k)(2) can supply personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant when: (1) the claim arises under federal law; (2) the defendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any state’s courts of general jurisdiction; and (3) exercising jurisdiction is consistent with the Constitution.
- Under Rule 4(k)(2), the relevant “forum” for minimum-contacts analysis is the United States as a whole rather than a single state.
- Courts generally do not attribute subsidiaries’ or affiliates’ contacts to a foreign parent absent proof supporting veil-piercing, alter-ego, or agency-based attribution.
- Substantial, ongoing U.S. business ties (including significant U.S. employment and U.S.-based payroll and operations) may constitute continuous and systematic national contacts sufficient for Rule 4(k)(2).

## Conclusion

In this maritime tort litigation arising from a hostage attack offshore Nigeria, the court applied due process limits on personal jurisdiction and held that Rule 4(k)(2) supported jurisdiction over GSF based on aggregate national contacts, while rejecting jurisdiction over Transocean, Ltd. because plaintiffs did not establish adequate, properly attributable contacts with Louisiana or the United States.


Johnson v. PPI Tech. Servs., L.P., 926 F. Supp. 2d 873 (E.D. La. 2013)