Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Maribel Delagado’s husband Reuben did not resurface during a scuba diving trip in Belize. Delgado, a Florida resident, sued Reef Resort Ltd. and Headrick Companies Inc., the companies that owned the resort that organized the scuba trip. Reef is a Belize company, but allegedly does business in Mississippi; Headrick is a Mississippi resident. The defendants removed Delgado’s claims from state court to federal court. The district court denied Headrick’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, because it is a Mississippi resident, but granted Reef’s motion. Delgado appeals Reef’s dismissal. HOLDING:Affirmed. The court finds several precedents interpreting Mississippi’s long-arm statute and holding that under the statute a non-resident may not sue another non-resident corporation doing business in Mississippi. The court rejects Delgado’s argument that such an interpretation violates the privileges and immunities clause. The court points to Breeland v. Hide-A-Way Lake Inc., 585 F.2d 716 (5th Cir. 1978), which expressly held that the statute does not violate the privileges and immunities clause. The court also reject’s Delgado’s attempt to invoke jurisdiction based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2), which this circuit has extended to admiralty cases. Contrary to Delgado’s assertion, her husband’s drowning was not a maritime tort. “In order for an accident to be a maritime tort so as to trigger admiralty jurisdiction, the mishap must occur on navigable waters, the accident must affect maritime commerce, and the activities leading to the tort must be connected to traditional maritime activity.” This was a scuba accident that did not affect maritime commerce. Though the court finds some evidence that jurisdiction could sound in the Death on the High Seas Act, the court finds that Delgado did not raise this issue at the district court. Reviewing for plain error, then, the court finds that the failure to sustain jurisdiction based on DOHSA does not seriously impact the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceeding. OPINION:Davis, J.; Davis, Barksdale and Prado, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.