Capt. Manjit Sangha v. Navig8 Ship Management PTE LTD., et al

Filing 23

OPINION on Jurisdiction entered. Increasing costs and prolonging the litigation is not a strategy. Sangha's motion for approval to conduct three depositions will be denied. Sangha's motion to remand will also be denied. (Signed by Judge Lynn N Hughes) Parties notified. (wbostic, 4)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

Captain Manjit Sangha,
Plaintiff,

versus
Navig8 Shipmanagement, Pte. Ltd., et al.,
Defendants.

ENTERED

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

January 20, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk

Civil Action H-r6-26r 3

Opinion onjurisdiction
Facts.

r.

Captain Manjit Sangha worked for Navig8 on its ship, the Miss Claudia.
In

2.01 5,

the Miss Claudia collided with the Euronike under his command. His

engagement with Navig8 ended. The next year, Marine Consultancy hired him
to work as a mooring master on ships in the Gulf of Mexico. One of these ships
was the Songha Pearl. The Songha Pearl was to lighter cargo to the Miss Claudia.
On discovering that Sangha had been named the mooring master on the Songha

Pearl, Navig8 emailed Marine to request that he not be the mooring master on
a ship alongside the Miss Claudia. Marine complied, replacing him on the Sangha

Pearl.
Because the court does not have personal jurisdiction over Navig8, this
case will be dismissed.

2.

Personal Jurisdiction.
The court does not have personal jurisdiction over Navig8 Shipmanage-

ment, Pte. Ltd. 1 A named defendant- Navig8 Group- does not exist; it never
has. Navig8 Shipmanagement is incorporated in Singapore, and its principal place
of business is there, too. It has offices in London and Mumbai. Its ships are
sometimes in Houston and sometimes all over the world. A different, related
company has a Houston office.

'See, e.g., Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A.,

11.

Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (rg84).

This claim does not anse out of Navig8's occasional contacts with
Houston. Sangha complains about emails from two Navig8 managers - one
based in London, the other in Singapore - to the president of Marine in
Alabama.
Sangha and Marine's contract was not formed in Houston. The contract
was between a company in Alabama and a resident of Florida, India, or both. It
was concluded via email. Its nearest connection to Houston is that the work was
in the Gulf ofMexico, and Marine dismissed Sangha from the Sangha Pearl while
she was moored in Houston.

3·

Forum non Conveniens.
This case is between a man who resides in Florida and India and a

corporation in Singapore. It is about an Alabama company's retaining Sangha
then revoking his assignment. It is also about Navig8 and that Alabama
company's agreement. Sangha's work and Navig8's ship were offshore Texas.
Navig8 is a Singaporean corporation. Singapore is an available forum,
2

because Navig8 may be sued there. Singapore is an adequate forum. Singapore
has open, functioning courts, and its legal system is based on English common
law, like India's and Florida's.
The facts favor dismissal.' The documents are online or in Singapore.
The witnesses are in Singapore or can easily go there. Singapore has jurisdiction
over Navig8. Houston is not related to this case.

4-

Theories.

Out of one email exchange, Sangha has five theories - ( r) tortious
interference with a maritime contract, ( 2.) tortious interference with current and
prospective relations and economic advantage, (3) defamation, (4) intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and (s) fraud. None of these would likely
succeed.

2

Sec Piper Aircraft Co. v. Rryno, 454 U.S. 2.35 (1981).

3

Sec GulfOil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947).

Sangha and Marine had a professional engagement. Navig8 and Marine
had a contract- Marine's ship would transfer cargo to Navig8's ship. Because
of Sangha's recent accident between the Miss Claudia and the Euronike, Navig8
asked Marine not to use him with the Miss Claudia. Navig8 did not tell Marine
to fire Sangha. It did not say that Sangha was in any way bad at his job. Navig8
simply said that it did not want someone who had been in command of the Miss

Claudia during the accident to maneuver the Sangha Pearl alongside her.
Investigations were pending, and Navig8 preferred not to sail with him.
The facts do not support the theories. This is neither tortious interference with a contract nor tortious interference with business relations.
Navig8's request was about Marine's performance of its contract with Navig8,
not about Sangha's engagement. Also, this cannot be defamation. That Sangha
was in command of the Miss Claudia during the accident is true. 4 Even if it were
erroneous, the emails were sent between people with a common interest in
Sangha's history. 5 This was not intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Navig8 politely requested that Sangha not maneuver the Sangha Pearl alongside
the Miss Claudia. No fact justifies the fraud theory.
5·

Conclusion.
Increasing costs and prolonging the litigation is not a strategy. Sangha's

motion for approval to conduct three depositions will be denied. Sangha's motion
to remand will also be denied.
This case will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Signed onjanuary

20,

wq, a~ Houston, Texas.

~

(

'!"k .U.~{~. . . ...
Lynn N. Hughes
United States District]udge

4 See

Randall's Food Markets, Inc. 11. Johnson, 891 S.W.2d 64o (Tex. 1995).

See Pioneer Concrete ofTexas, Inc. v. Allen, 858 S.W.2d 47 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th
Dist.]July 8, 1993, reh'g denied); Gonzalez v. Methodist Charlton Medical Center, 201 I WL
5

6091255 (Tex. App.-Waco Dec. 7, 2011).