Ganpat v. Eastern Pacific Shipping PTE. Ltd., No. 2:2018cv13556 - Document 81 (E.D. La. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS - The 70 Motion for Leave to Take Discovery is GRANTED. Parties to comply as stated herein. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's 69 Motion to Dismiss will be submitted on 9/4/2019. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 6/4/2019.(sbs)

Download PDF

Ganpat v. Eastern Pacific Shipping PTE. Ltd. Doc. 81 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A KH OLKAR VISH VESH W AR GAN PAT, Plain tiff CIVIL D OCKET VERSU S N O. 18 -13 556 EASTERN PACIFIC SH IPPIN G, PTE. LTD , D e fe n d an t SECTION : “E” ( 4 ) ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the Court is a Motion for Leave to Take Discovery filed by Plaintiff Kholkar Vishveshwar Ganpat. 1 Defendant Eastern Pacific Shipping, PTE LTD. (“Eastern Pacific”) opposes the m otion. 2 Plaintiff filed a reply. 3 For the following reasons, this m otion is GRAN TED . BACKGROU N D Plaintiff Kholkar Ganpat alleges he contracted m alaria while working as a crew m em ber aboard the M/ V STARGATE, which Plaintiff alleges is owned and operated by Eastern Pacific. 4 Eastern Pacific is an international ship m anagem en t com pany with its principal place of busin ess in Singapore. 5 On Decem ber 12, 20 18, Plaintiff filed the instant suit, bringing claim s against Eastern Pacific under the J ones Act, general m aritim e law, and contract law. On Decem ber 17, 20 18 , Plaintiff filed into the record proof of service on Eastern Pacific. 6 The executed sum m ons dem onstrates Plaintiff served Captain Owen Bona 1 R. Doc. 70 . R. Doc. 75. 3 R. Doc. 80 . 4 R. Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 6, 32. 5 Id. at ¶ 2. 6 R. Doc. 8. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com aboard the M/ V BANDA SEA on Decem ber 15, 20 18. 7 On April 25, 20 19, Eastern Pacific filed an am ended and restated Motion to Dism iss, m oving to dism iss Plaintiff’s claim s pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process. 8 Alternatively, Eastern Pacific m oves to require proper service on it in Singapore through a letter rogatory, as authorized by Order 65 of the Suprem e Court of Singapore. 9 On April 30 , 20 19, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave to Take Discovery, requesting discovery regarding the issue of whether Captain Bona is a m anaging agent of Eastern Pacific authorized to receive service of process. 10 Plaintiff contends Captain Bona is a m anaging agent of Eastern Pacific as contem plated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h)(1)(B) and, as a result, service upon Captain Bona was sufficient service on Eastern Pacific. 11 LAW AN D AN ALYSIS Plaintiff requests to conduct written discovery to determ in e whether Captain Bona is a m an aging agent of Eastern Pacific. Plaintiff also proposes to take the depositions of Captain Bona, Mr. Arjun Singh, and a Rule 30 (b)(1) or 30 (b)(6) witness of Eastern Pacific. 12 In response to a m otion to dism iss under Rule 12(b)(5), the plaintiff is perm itted to introduce evidence, or, in the alternative, to m ove to conduct discovery on the validity of the service. 13 The court m ay allow the plaintiff to conduct discovery regarding any 7 Id. R. Doc. 69. Eastern Pacific waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction because it did not include the defense in its restated Motion to Dism iss. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(1). 9 Id. 10 R. Doc. 70 . 11 R. Doc. 23. 12 R. Doc. 70 -1. 13 5B CHARLES ALAN W RIGHT, ET AL., F EDERAL P RACTICE & P ROCEDURE § 1353 (3d. ed.); see also Anderson v . British Overseas Airw ay s Corp., 149 F. Supp. 68, 70 -71 (S.D.N.Y. 1956); Kaffenberger v. Krem er, 4 F.R.D. 478, 479 (E.D. Pa. 1945); Urquhart v. Am .-La France Foam ite Corp., 144 F.2d 542 (1944). 8 2 issues of fact raised by the 12(b)(5) m otion. 14 Further, courts have discretion to perm it discovery to determ ine whether an individual is a m anaging agent of a corporation such that he or she is qualified to receive service of process on its behalf. 15 Accordingly; IT IS ORD ERED that the Motion for Leave to Take Discovery 16 is GRAN TED . Plaintiff will be perm itted to conduct written discovery relevant to the issue of whether Captain Bona is a m anaging agent of Eastern Pacific. Plaintiff’s written discovery requests m ust be served no later than Ju n e 18 , 2 0 19 and answered no later than Ju ly 1, 2 0 19 . Plaintiff also will be perm itted to depose a Rule 30 (b)(6) representative of the Defendant with respect to whether Captain Bona is a m anaging agent of Eastern Pacific. The Rule 30 (b)(6) notice m ust be served on the Defen dant by no later than Ju n e 18 , 2 0 19 . Any depositions m ust take place no later than Ju ly 3 1, 2 0 19 . Any m otions to com pel or quash discovery shall be accom panied by a m otion to expedite and set before the undersigned. IT IS FU RTH ER ORD ERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dism iss will be subm itted on Se p te m be r 4 , 2 0 19 . N e w Orle a n s , Lo u is ian a, th is 4 th d ay o f Ju n e , 2 0 19 . ______________________ _________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 14 27A TRACY BATEMAN , ET. AL., F EDERAL P ROCEDURE , LAWYERS EDITION § 62:449 (20 19); see also Collins v. N .Y. Cent. Sy s., 327 F.2d 8 80 (D.C. Cir. 1963). 15 See, e.g., Anderson , 149 F. Supp. at 70 -71; Kaffenberger, 4 F.R.D. at 479; Urquhart, 144 F.2d 542. 16 R. Doc. 70 . 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.