Popescu Ex Rel. Estate of Popescu v. CMA-CGM , 384 F. App'x 902 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                          [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT           FILED
    ________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    JUNE 24, 2010
    No. 09-16242                    JOHN LEY
    Non-Argument Calendar                CLERK
    ________________________
    D. C. Docket No. 09-20860-CV-CMA
    CLAUDIA POPESCU, individually
    and as personal representative
    of the Estate of George Popescu,
    deceased,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    CMA-CGM,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Florida
    _________________________
    (June 24, 2010)
    Before BLACK, HULL and FAY, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant-plaintiff Claudia Popescu brought this wrongful death action on
    behalf of herself, individually, and as the personal representative of the estate of
    her deceased husband, George Popescu. Claudia Popescu’s wrongful death action
    was filed against Defendant CMA CGM, a French corporation, in the Southern
    District of Florida, alleging claims of negligence under the Jones Act, 
    46 U.S.C. § 30104
    , the Death on the High Seas Act, 
    46 U.S.C. §§ 30301-08
    , and general
    maritime law of the United States.
    Defendant CMA CGM hired George Popescu, a Romanian citizen, to work
    as a seaman aboard a container ship, the RIGOLETTO, that CMA CGM operated.
    The RIGOLETTO is owned by a French corporation, flies a French flag and sails
    the Northwestern-Europe-to-Southeast-Asia trade route. While the RIGOLETTO
    was moored at Port Kelang, Malaysia, a mooring line snapped and hit George
    Popescu in the head. Popescu was taken to a Malaysian hospital, where he died
    the following day. Claudia Popescu is also a Romanian citizen and resides in
    Romania.
    CMA CGM moved to dismiss Claudia Popescu’s action on forum non
    conveniens grounds, arguing that the action had no connection to any of CMA
    CGM’s contacts with the United States and that France and Romania provided
    more appropriate fora for Popsecu to pursue her claims. The district court granted
    2
    CMA CGM’s motion to dismiss, concluding that Claudia Popescu had not shown
    that the United States was a proper forum.
    The district court noted that the parties did not dispute that the first seven
    Lauritzen-Rhoditis factors weighed against the application of the United States
    maritime law.1 The district court then determined that the last, disputed factor —
    whether the vessel or its operator had a “substantial base of operations” in the
    United States — also weighed against application of United States law. The
    district court found that: (1) the RIGOLETTO had no contact with the United
    States; and (2) CMA CGM’s contacts with the United States were insufficient to
    constitute a substantial base of operations. In evaluating CMA CGM’s U.S.
    contacts, the district court refused to consider the business operations of CMA
    CGM’s U.S. subsidiaries and agents because Popescu had not made the
    prerequisite showing for piercing the corporate veil. The district court concluded
    that United States maritime law should not apply and that traditional forum non
    conveniens considerations indicated that France and Romania were more
    appropriate fora. The district court dismissed Claudia Popescu’s complaint
    without prejudice.
    1
    Lauritzen v. Larsen, 
    345 U.S. 571
    , 
    73 S. Ct. 921
     (1953); Hellenic Lines Ltd. v. Rhoditis,
    
    398 U.S. 306
    , 
    90 S. Ct. 1731
     (1970).
    3
    After review, we affirm the district court’s dismissal for the reasons stated
    in the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned order filed on November 5,
    2009. We conclude that the district court’s factual findings were not clearly
    erroneous, that the district court correctly applied the law of this circuit and that
    the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting CMA CGM’s motion to
    dismiss based on forum non conveniens. See Szulmlicz v. Norwegian Am. Line,
    Inc., 
    698 F.2d 1192
    , 1196 (11th Cir. 1983).
    AFFIRMED.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-16242

Citation Numbers: 384 F. App'x 902

Judges: Black, Hull, Fay

Filed Date: 6/24/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024