Campbell et al v. Logue et al

Filing 102

ORDER Denying 92 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 8/3/2012. (knb)

1

JM

2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12

Case No. 10-cv-1821-JM-DHB

STEVEN CAMPBELL, an individual; and
CARLOTA FRANKLIN-CAMPBELL, an
individual.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISMISS

Plaintiffs,
vs.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

WILLIAM LOGUE, an individual and as a
Trustee for The Sears/Logue Revocable Trust ;
THE SEARS/LOGUE REVOCABLE TRUST;
DAVID MARQUEZ, an individual; and
MIKELSON YACHTS, INC., a California
Corporation; NAN YA PLASTICS
CORPORATION, a Foreign Corporation; and
NAN YA PLASTICS CORPORATION, a
Delaware Corporation,
Defendants.
I. BACKGROUND
In August of 2010, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in this court based on an injury sustained

22

by Plaintiff Steven Campbell while he was the passenger on a fishing boat (the “Andale”)

23

traveling off the southern tip of Baja California, Mexico. Plaintiffs sued William Logue (the

24

boat’s owner), David Marquez (the boat’s captain), and several other entities. The first amended

25

1

1

complaint contains five causes of action: two for negligence, two for product liability, and one

2

for loss of consortium.
Defendant David Marquez (“Marquez”) filed this motion to dismiss under Fed. R.

3
4

Civ. B. 12(b)(2) (lack of personal jurisdiction) and 12(b)(5) (insufficient service of process). For

5

the reasons stated below, the motion is DENIED.

6

II. LEGAL STANDARD AND DISCUSSION

7

A. Personal Jurisdiction

8

Marquez’s motion discusses the legal standard for personal jurisdiction and argues that he

9

is not subject to the general or specific jurisdiction of this court because he is a citizen of Mexico

10

and has essentially no contacts with San Diego or California as a whole. Plaintiffs’ opposition to

11

the jurisdictional argument is almost entirely based on the contention that the captain of a U.S.

12

flagged vessel is automatically subject to personal jurisdiction.
In order to secure personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a manner consistent with due

13
14

process,1 a federal court must ensure he has “certain minimum contacts with it such that the

15

maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”

16

International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, Office of Unemployment Compensation and

17

Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (internal quotation marks omitted).

18

The court has personal jurisdiction over Marquez in this case, established by his position

19

as a captain of a U.S. flagged vessel. A basic principle of international law “generally prohibits

20

any country from asserting jurisdiction over foreign vessels on the high seas,” but “such vessels

21

are normally considered within the exclusive jurisdiction of the country whose flag they fly.”

22

United States v. Marino-Garcia, 679 F.2d 1373, 1380 (11th Cir. 1982). See also United States v.

23

Hensel, 711 F.2d 1000, 1002-03 (11th Cir. 1983). Though the case on which Plaintiffs rely,

24
25

1

California law allows its courts to “exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the
Constitution of this state or of the United States.” Cal. Code. Civ. Proc. § 410.10.

2

1

Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 571 (1953) addresses choice of law, its language supports

2

Plaintiffs’ argument that a ship’s flag state is of principal importance for determining

3

jurisdictional questions. The court finds that by voluntarily serving as captain of the Andale, a

4

U.S. flagged vessel with a hailing port of San Diego, Marquez has sufficient contacts with

5

California to allow a case against him in this court without violating due process.

6

B. Service

7

Marquez also makes a terse argument that he should be dismissed because Plaintiffs

8

improperly served him under the Hague Convention. However, as pointed out by Plaintiffs,

9

courts generally decline to “look behind the certificate of service” when the relevant authority of

10

the country effecting service has certified service under their own procedures. Northrup King

11

Co., v. Compania Productora Semillas Algodoneras Selectas, S.A., 51 F.3d 1383, 1390 (8th Cir.

12

1995). Here, the Mexican Central Authority has certified service; Marquez’s counsel’s

13

statements concerning the contents of the facsimile he received from Marquez are insufficient to

14

further frustrate the progress of this litigation.

15

III. CONCLUSION

16
17
18

For the reasons stated above, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 3, 2012

19

______________________________
_______________
_______
__________________
__
_____
Jeffrey T. Miller
Jeff e
Jef rey T Miller
ller
United States District Judge
United
sD

20
21
22
23
24
25

3