## Facts

- A Latvian fishing vessel, *Astrida*, sank in Swedish waters in May 2004, killing six crew members.
- The decedents’ representatives and the vessel’s owner sued Marward Shipping Co., Ltd. (a Cypriot corporation) in federal court, alleging *Astrida* was struck and sunk by Marward’s cargo ship, *M/V Vladimir*, due to negligent operation.
- Marward denied the *Vladimir* was involved in the casualty.
- Before Marward’s ownership, the *Vladimir* was time-chartered to Ambery Maritime Ltd.; the charter gave Ambery the right to direct the vessel’s worldwide trading and routing.
- Under the charter, the *Vladimir* made numerous U.S. port calls (over sixty between 2000 and early 2004), operating in U.S.–Russia trade lanes.
- Marward purchased the *Vladimir* on March 29, 2004, while the time charter remained in effect; after the purchase, Marward did not control the vessel’s movements and had no U.S. office, employees, or comparable domestic presence.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal court sitting in admiralty could exercise general personal jurisdiction over a foreign shipowner based on repeated U.S. port calls by its vessel when the calls were directed by an independent time charterer.
2. Whether Marward had constitutionally sufficient, “continuous and systematic” contacts with the United States, attributable to Marward itself, to satisfy Fifth Amendment due process for general jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The court held Marward lacked constitutionally sufficient contacts with the United States to support general jurisdiction.
- The vessel’s U.S. port calls did not establish Marward’s own forum contacts where routing and trading were controlled by the time charterer.
- The court did not reach the merits of whether the *Vladimir* struck the *Astrida*.

## Legal Principles

- In federal-question/admiralty cases, due process under the Fifth Amendment requires that the defendant itself have adequate minimum contacts with the relevant forum (often the United States as a whole), and that exercising jurisdiction be reasonable.
- General jurisdiction requires contacts so continuous and systematic that the defendant is, in practical effect, “at home” in the forum; the analysis focuses on the defendant’s own conduct, not merely the forum presence of its property.
- Contacts generated by an independent time charterer’s control of a vessel’s trading pattern ordinarily are not imputed to the foreign owner for general-jurisdiction purposes when the owner does not direct the vessel’s U.S. operations.
- Physical entry of a ship into U.S. ports, without owner-directed U.S. business activity or other domestic presence, is insufficient to establish general jurisdiction over the foreign owner.
- Reasonableness considerations (burden on a foreign defendant, weak U.S. interest in an offshore foreign casualty, and availability of more connected fora) can reinforce the conclusion that jurisdiction would violate due process.

## Conclusion

Because Marward’s only asserted U.S. connection was a ship’s charterer-directed port activity—and Marward otherwise lacked owner-driven, continuous U.S. ties—the Constitution did not permit U.S. general personal jurisdiction over Marward for a Baltic Sea casualty involving foreign parties.


Porina v. Marward Shipping Co., 521 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2008)