## Facts

- Two foreign-flag vessels, the *M/V New World* (owned by World Tanker Carriers Corp.) and the *M/V Ya Mawlaya*, collided in international waters off Portugal.
- The collision caused an explosion and fire, resulting in deaths, injuries, and extensive damage to the vessels and cargo.
- The *Ya Mawlaya* was carrying soybeans owned by an Italian cargo interest; the cargo had been loaded in Louisiana before the vessel sailed for Italy.
- World Tanker sued the *Ya Mawlaya* (in rem) and various foreign entities and individuals allegedly involved in the vessel’s ownership and management (in personam) under general maritime law in the Eastern District of Louisiana.
- The district court dismissed World Tanker’s claims against the *Ya Mawlaya* interests for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding jurisdiction was unavailable under the Louisiana long-arm statute and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2).
- World Tanker and related claimants appealed, focusing on whether Rule 4(k)(2) permitted personal jurisdiction over the foreign defendants in an admiralty case.

## Issues

1. Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) applies to admiralty and maritime claims as claims “arising under federal law.”
2. Whether the district court erred by dismissing for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2), including by requiring an impracticable showing that no state could exercise jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit held that Rule 4(k)(2) applies to admiralty and maritime claims.
- The court ruled that Rule 4(k)(2) permits aggregation of a defendant’s contacts with the United States as a whole, rather than limiting the analysis to the forum state.
- The court rejected an interpretation that would require a plaintiff to negate personal jurisdiction in every state as a condition of invoking Rule 4(k)(2).
- The court reversed the dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction and remanded for further proceedings under the correct Rule 4(k)(2) framework.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 4(k)(2) may establish personal jurisdiction for federal-law claims (including admiralty) over a defendant not subject to jurisdiction in any state, if exercising jurisdiction comports with due process.
- For Rule 4(k)(2), due process is assessed by aggregating “minimum contacts” with the United States as a whole, not by focusing solely on contacts with the forum state.
- The “no state forum” requirement should be applied practically; once a plaintiff makes a prima facie showing of a federal claim and sufficient nationwide contacts, the defendant must identify a state in which it is amenable to suit or the requirement is treated as satisfied.
- Reading Rule 4(k)(2) to impose an impossible burden on plaintiffs defeats the rule’s purpose of providing a federal forum for claims against foreign defendants with dispersed U.S. contacts.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit reinstated the admiralty action, holding that Rule 4(k)(2) reaches maritime claims and authorizes personal jurisdiction based on nationwide contacts when foreign defendants are not shown to be subject to any single state’s jurisdiction, and it remanded for the district court to apply the proper standard.


World Tanker Carriers Corp. v. M/V Ya Mawlaya, 99 F.3d 717 (5th Cir. 1996)