[ad_1]
U.S. District Court
Listen to this articleWhere three plaintiffs obtained a default judgment following a diving accident involving a vessel operated by the defendant off the coast of Belize, a motion to vacate filed by the defendant should be denied because the defendant has not shown a lack of subject matter or personal jurisdiction.
“In 2020, Plaintiffs Susan, Robert, and Daniel Flaherty filed an amended complaint alleging various maritime torts against Defendant Amigos Del Mar Dive Shop (‘Amigos’) after a diving accident involving a vessel operated by Amigos off the coast of Belize. When Amigos failed to appear despite notice of the suit, the Court held an evidentiary hearing and entered default judgment. …
“Amigos argues that since the incident occurred at the Tackle Box site, within the navigable waters of Belize, maritime jurisdiction does not apply.
“A district court’s jurisdiction under [28 U.S.C.] §1333(1) may extend to torts arising in foreign territorial waters. …
“Therefore, even though the incident took place in Belize’s navigable waters, the location requirement is met here. …
“Having found the location requirement met, the Court turns to the connection requirement. …
“Amigos relies on Delgado v. Reef Resort Ltd., 364 F.3d 642 (5th Cir. 2004), for the proposition that incidents involving recreational scuba diving do not meet the connection test. While Delgado does give pause, it is distinguishable. In Delgado, the deceased never surfaced during a scuba dive in open water. … The court concluded that the death did not result from a maritime tort: ‘The activity surrounding the recreational scuba diving activity in this case did not affect maritime commerce, and these activities are not connected with traditional maritime activity.’ … In contrast, the injury here stemmed from the vessel itself. Susan was pushed from the deck by a member of the crew and struck by the vessel’s propeller that the boat captain failed to disengage. Such a serious injury had the potential to disrupt maritime commerce because of the need for emergency transport and care in navigable waters.
“Accordingly, this Court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the case, and the motion to vacate will not be granted on these grounds. …
“Amigos also contests that the Court had personal jurisdiction over it. …
“The relatedness prong is met here. The accident giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred during a diving trip that was arranged, in part, while Susan was in Massachusetts with an agent of Amigos. … Plaintiffs’ claims arise from forum-based conduct, namely Amigos’ solicitation of business through its agent via direct outreach to a Massachusetts resident. …
“Plaintiffs argue that Amigos purposefully availed itself of Massachusetts by soliciting American customers, using WhatsApp to book dive trips, listing prices in U.S. dollars, and maintaining a United States-oriented website. Amigos counters that it has never maintained an office, bank account, or physical presence in Massachusetts and has not purposefully availed itself of the forum. …
“Here, there is an arguable basis to find that a substantial connection with the forum exists to satisfy the purposeful availment prong. …
“Accordingly, Amigos could have foreseen the possibility of being haled into court in Massachusetts as a result of this contact, and this Court finds that Plaintiffs have satisfied the purposeful availment prong at this stage of the litigation. …
“Taken together, because there is an arguable basis that Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of Amigos’ forum-based conduct, that Amigos purposefully availed itself of the forum, and that exercising jurisdiction would not be constitutionally unreasonable, the Court finds that it may properly exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Amigos.”
Flaherty, et al. v. Amigos Del Mar Ltd. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-407-25) (19 pages) (Saris, J.) (Civil Action No. 20-cv-11485-PBS) (July 30, 2025).
[ad_2]
Source link