Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-14-03753/USCOURTS-ca3-14-03753-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 14-3753

_____________

CYRIL RICHARDSON; MEAGHAN RICHARDSON

v.

RANDY DONOVAN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE BRITISH VIRGIN 

ISLANDS

Attorney General of the British Virgin Islands,

Appellant

_____________

On Appeal from the District Court

for the District of the Virgin Islands

(D.C. Civ. No. 3-08-cv-00144)

District Judge: Hon. Curtis V. Gómez

______________

Argued May 16, 2016

______________

Before: FUENTES,* VANASKIE, and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges.

(Opinion Filed: December 15, 2016)

Thomas F. Friedberg, Esq. [ARGUED]

Law Offices of Friedberg & Bunge

610 West Ash Street

Suite 1400

San Diego, CA 92166

Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cyril Richardson and Meaghan Richardson

 * The Honorable Julio M. Fuentes assumed senior status on July 18, 2016.

Case: 14-3753 Document: 003112488984 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2016
2

Maria T. Hodge, Esq. [ARGUED]

Mark D. Hodge, Esq.

Hodge & Hodge

1340 Taarneberg

St. Thomas, VI 00802

Counsel for Defendant, the Attorney General of the British Virgin Islands

_____________

OPINION*

_____________

VANASKIE, Circuit Judge. 

The Government of the British Virgin Islands (“BVI”) appeals the District Court’s 

denial of its motion to dismiss Appellees’ complaint on the basis of the Foreign 

Sovereign Immunities Act (“FISA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1602, et seq. Plaintiffs-Appellees Cyril 

Richardson and Meaghan Richardson, filed suit against the BVI for injuries sustained 

during a boating accident involving a BVI customs vessel. The BVI is not immune from 

suit if the mishap occurred within the territorial waters of the United States. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1605(a)(5) (no immunity to a foreign state in any case “in which money 

damages are sought . . . for personal injury . . . occurring in the United States and caused 

by the tortious act . . . of any official or employee of that foreign state while acting within 

the scope of his office or employment . . . .”). The District Court, without conducting an 

adversarial evidentiary hearing, but relying instead upon submissions made by the 

Appellees during proceedings in which the BVI did not participate, ruled that the accident 

occurred within the United States, thus removing the BVI’s immunity from suit in this 

 * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 

does not constitute binding precedent.

Case: 14-3753 Document: 003112488984 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2016
3

case. We conclude that it was error to make this significant determination without 

conducting an adversarial evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, we will vacate the District 

Court’s Order denying BVI’s motion to dismiss and remand for further proceedings.

I. 

Because we write primarily for the parties, our discussion of the facts is limited to 

those necessary to decide this appeal. On December 1, 2007, Meaghan and Cyril 

Richardson were passengers on a powerboat named the “Guilt Trip,” owned by Ryan 

Uzenski. At approximately 9:15 p.m., the Guilt Trip was stopped by a BVI customs 

vessel under the control of BVI customs officer Randy Donovan. Eventually, BVI 

customs officers asked the Richardsons and the other occupants of the Guilt Trip to board 

the customs vessel. All complied. As the captain of the customs vessel prepared to 

depart the scene, however, the captain crashed the customs boat into the “Guilt Trip,” 

injuring Meaghan Richardson. Following the accident, BVI customs officials took the 

Richardsons and the other occupants of the Guilt Trip to the BVI and charged them with 

illegally entering the BVI. Ultimately, the Richardsons pled guilty to unlawfully entering 

the BVI.

In November 2008, the Richardsons filed suit against the Attorney General of the 

BVI and Donovan for injuries stemming from the accident, asserting that diversity 

jurisdiction and maritime jurisdiction existed. (App. 110, 118.) After believing that they 

had properly made service of process, and with no responsive pleading or entry of 

appearance on behalf of the Defendants having been filed, the Richardsons moved for 

entry of default. In July 2010, a Magistrate Judge determined that the Richardsons 

Case: 14-3753 Document: 003112488984 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/15/2016
4

properly served the Defendants, but that the Richardsons had not established that the 

accident occurred in United States waters. (App. 46-49.) Thereafter, the Richardsons 

filed a second motion for entry of default along with an affidavit by Cyril Richardson 

regarding the accident’s location. (App. 134-36.) In February of 2011, the Magistrate 

Judge granted the motion for entry of default. (App. 50-51.)

With default having been entered, the case proceeded to a bench trial before a 

District Judge on August 29, 2011. Two years later, the District Judge issued an order 

vacating the entry of default, finding that service of process on the BVI had not been 

effected properly and that Donovan was not an appropriate party to the litigation. (App. 

52-53, 82.) The District Judge, however, agreed with the Magistrate Judge that the 

mishap had occurred “while [the Richardsons] were passengers on a boat in the territorial 

waters of the United States Virgin Islands . . . ” (App. 66) In making this determination, 

the District Judge relied upon evidence produced by the Richardsons during the August 

29, 2011 bench trial. 

In October 2013, the Richardsons properly served the BVI. (App. 9.) On 

November 22, 2013, the BVI moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter and 

personal jurisdiction. The subject matter jurisdictional challenge was premised upon the 

FSIA. The BVI presented records of the Richardsons’ conviction for illegal entry into 

the BVI and asserted that the convictions conclusively established that the mishap did not 

occur in U.S. territorial waters. The District Court, substantially relying upon the record 

created during the bench trial held in 2011 and the Magistrate Judge’s findings, rejected 

the BVI defense and affirmed its conclusion that the accident happened in the territorial 

Case: 14-3753 Document: 003112488984 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/15/2016
5

waters of the U.S. Virgin Islands. In March 2015, the District Court denied the BVI’s 

motion for reconsideration. The BVI timely filed this appeal.

II.

A foreign state is immune from suit unless an exception to immunity applies under 

the FSIA. Verlinden B.V. v. Cent. Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480, 488 (1983). “The 

FSIA thus provides the ‘sole basis’ for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign in 

the United States.” Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc., 504 U.S. 607, 611 (1992). 

One exception to immunity is the non-commercial tort exception, which applies in cases

“against a foreign state for personal injury . . . occurring in the United States and caused 

by the tortious act or omission of that foreign state or of any official or employee of that 

foreign state while acting within the scope of his office or employment.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1605(a)(5) (emphasis added). We exercise plenary review over the District Court’s 

determination that subject matter jurisdiction exists under the FSIA.1

 Fed. Ins. Co. v. 

Richard I. Rubin & Co., 12 F.3d 1270, 1282 (3d Cir. 1993). 

We apply a burden-shifting framework to determine whether FSIA jurisdiction 

exists. See id. at 1285. If the defendant shows that it is a “foreign state,” the defendant 

presumptively has immunity. Id. The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to show that an 

exception under the FSIA applies. Id. However, “the ultimate burden of proving 

 1 We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal pursuant to the collateral order doctrine. 

Fed. Ins. Co.,12 F.3d at 1282; see also Jungquist v. Sheikh Sultan Bin Khalifa Al Nahyan, 

115 F.3d 1020, 1025 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (“It is well-established that an appeal from a denial 

of a motion to dismiss a complaint on the ground of sovereign immunity under the FSIA 

satisfies the three requirements of the collateral order doctrine and may thus be brought 

on an interlocutory basis.”). 

Case: 14-3753 Document: 003112488984 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/15/2016
6

immunity from suit lies with the [foreign state].” Id.; see also City of New York v. 

Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations, 446 F.3d 365, 369 (2d Cir. 2006), 

aff’d and remanded, 551 U.S. 193 (2007) (“The party seeking to establish jurisdiction 

bears the burden of producing evidence establishing that a specific exception to immunity 

applies, but the foreign state then bears the ultimate burden of persuasion on this 

question.”). 

The District Court made its conclusion that the accident occurred within U.S. 

territory in a most unusual procedural context. It relied upon evidence presented ex parte 

during a bench trial held to determine whether the Richardsons were entitled to a default 

judgment. It also relied upon the Magistrate Judge’s finding that there was 

“topographical corroboration . . . to establish that the alleged tort occurred in the United 

States.” (App. 25, quoting the Magistrate Judge Order of February 7, 2011.) None of 

this evidence was tested through the adversarial process. 

We have observed that, where the parties dispute a material fact regarding the 

exercise of subject matter jurisdiction, “the court must conduct a plenary hearing on the 

contested issues prior to determining jurisdiction.” McCann v. Newman Irrevocable 

Trust, 458 F.3d 281, 290 (3d Cir. 2006). Here, the parties disputed the location of the 

accident. Both sides presented substantial evidence on this dispositive fact. The 

resolution of this factual dispute is not readily apparent. Under these circumstances, an 

evidentiary hearing is required. Therefore, we remand this case for the District Court to

hold an evidentiary hearing regarding the location of the accident and to determine 

whether FSIA jurisdiction exists. See Reiss v. Société Centrale Du Groupe Des 

Case: 14-3753 Document: 003112488984 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/15/2016
7

Assurances Nationales, 235 F.3d 738, 748 (2d Cir. 2000) (“We think it essential for the 

district court to afford the parties the opportunity to present evidentiary material at a 

hearing on the question of FSIA jurisdiction.”); see also Mortimer Off Shore Servs., Ltd. 

v. Fed. Republic of Germany, 615 F.3d 97, 105 (2d Cir. 2010) (“The district court should 

make this [subject matter jurisdiction and immunity] determination recognizing that a 

motion to dismiss based on an assertion of sovereign immunity has particular significance 

because . . . [s]overeign immunity under the FSIA is immunity from suit, not just from 

liability.” (internal quotation omitted)). 

III.

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate and remand this case to the District Court to 

conduct an evidentiary hearing.

Case: 14-3753 Document: 003112488984 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/15/2016