UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Case No. 1:20-cv-22471-DPG 

NORTH AMERICAN SUGAR INDUSTRIES INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

XINJIANG GOLDWIND SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 

CO., LTD., GOLDWIND INTERNATIONAL 

HOLDINGS (HK) LTD., DSV AIR & SEA INC., 

BBC CHARTERING USA, LLC, and 

BBC CHARTERING SINGAPORE PTE LTD., 

Defendants. 

PLAINTIFF NORTH AMERICAN SUGAR INDUSTRIES INC.’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CONDUCT JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY 

AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW 

Andrea E. Neuman (pro hac vice) 

Rahim Moloo (pro hac vice) 

Casey Kyung-Se Lee (pro hac vice) 

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 

200 Park Avenue, 47th Floor 

New York, NY 10166-0193 

Telephone: (212) 351-3883 

Facsimile: (212) 351-5303 

aneuman@gibsondunn.com 

rmoloo@gibsondunn.com 

clee@gibsondunn.com 

David S. Mandel 

FBN 38040 

MANDEL & MANDEL LLP 

169 East Flagler Street, Suite 1224 

Miami, FL 33131 

Telephone: (305) 374-7771 

dsm@mandel.law 

Miguel A. Estrada (pro hac vice) 

Audi K. Syarief (pro hac vice) 

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 

1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20036-5306 

Telephone: (202) 955-8257 

Facsimile: (202) 530-9616 

mestrada@gibsondunn.com 

asyarief@gibsondunn.com 

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2020 Page 1 of 20
 2 

Plaintiff North American Sugar Industries Inc. (“American Sugar”) respectfully moves 

for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery to respond to the motions to dismiss pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) (the “Rule 12(b)(2) Motions”) filed by Defendants 

Goldwind International Holdings (HK) Ltd. (“Goldwind International”), DSV Air & Sea Inc. 

(“DSV”), BBC Chartering USA, LLC (“BBC USA”), and BBC Chartering Singapore PTE Ltd. 

(“BBC Singapore”) (collectively, “Defendants”).1 Dkt. Nos. 48, 52–53. For the reasons set forth 

below, and assuming the ability to conduct remote depositions, American Sugar requests sixty 

(60) days to conduct discovery on issues of personal jurisdiction (including third-party discovery 

as appropriate), and an additional twenty-one (21) days from the close of jurisdictional discovery 

to file a consolidated response to Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(2) Motions.2

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

American Sugar’s well-pleaded complaint details Defendants’ violations of the HelmsBurton Act through their involvement in two shipments of equipment from China to American 

Sugar’s confiscated Cuban shipping port, with planned and purposeful stops in Miami, Florida, 

immediately before arriving in Cuba. One Defendant now admits that those stops in Florida 

were necessary to gain clearance from U.S. Customs beforehand and ensure that the shipments 

did not violate additional federal laws. Defendants nonetheless challenge the Court’s exercise of 

personal jurisdiction by baldly disputing allegations in the complaint and making conclusory 

denials of involvement in the requisite Florida stops. 

 

1

 For purposes of this motion, the term “Defendants” does not include Defendant Xinjiang 

Goldwind Science & Technology Co., Ltd., which has not yet filed a response to the complaint. 

2

 Pursuant to this Court’s order, Dkt. No. 58, American Sugar will file a consolidated response 

no longer than fifty (50) pages to Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(2) Motions to Dismiss. 

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2020 Page 2 of 20
 3 

But Defendants’ denials flatly conflict with records they filed with the U.S. government 

and with publicly available information. DSV, for example, claims that customs information it 

submitted to the U.S. government—which establishes DSV’s involvement in the at-issue 

shipments, and is described in the complaint—was the result of a “clerical error,” and should 

have been submitted instead on behalf of a foreign affiliate. Goldwind International fails to 

acknowledge its own repeated public statements (also cited in American Sugar’s complaint) 

announcing its execution of a supply contract for the equipment transported on the two voyages. 

Similarly, BBC USA nowhere addresses the contents of its parent group’s website advising that 

BBC USA would have been the point of contact for the two shipping vessels once they entered 

the Gulf of Mexico with the equipment. 

Further, Defendants make caveated admissions of some involvement in the shipments, 

but then state in a conclusory fashion that such involvement is immaterial. DSV, for instance, 

admits taking steps to address licensing and compliance issues with the BBC Moonstone 

shipment, but supposedly only “outside of Florida.” BBC Singapore, in turn, admits that it was 

the agent for the vessel operator of both shipments, but nevertheless claims that its contact with 

Florida was merely “incidental.” Indeed, per Defendants, no one had responsibility for the stops 

in Florida they admit the vessels were legally required to make. 

American Sugar has no obligation to accept Defendants’ convenient yet untested denials 

and claims at face value. To the contrary, jurisdictional discovery is “highly favored” in this 

Circuit, S.A.S.B. Corp. v. Concordia Pharm., Inc., 2016 WL 10953760, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 26, 

2016) (collecting cases), and courts have recognized that such discovery is appropriate where a 

defendant’s challenges to personal jurisdiction raise disputes about facts that would support a 

plaintiff’s jurisdictional allegations, or present a risk that a defendant is withholding information 

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2020 Page 3 of 20
 4 

about its contacts with the forum. See Aviation One of Fla., Inc. v. Airborne Ins. Consultants 

(PTY), Ltd, 722 F. App’x 870, 878 (11th Cir. 2018); UnitedHealthcare of Fla., Inc. v. Am. Renal 

Assocs. Holdings, Inc., 2016 WL 8794534, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 5, 2016). Defendants’ 

arguments and supporting declarations readily meet these thresholds for jurisdictional discovery. 

Those submissions deny certain of American Sugar’s alleged jurisdictional facts outright, and 

raise serious doubts over Defendants’ purported lack of involvement in the shipments at issue. 

The Court should therefore permit American Sugar to conduct jurisdictional discovery in this 

case. 

BACKGROUND

A. American Sugar’s Allegations in Support of Personal Jurisdiction 

American Sugar filed this action on June 15, 2020 against Defendants for “trafficking” in 

its confiscated property in Cuba—including its confiscated shipping port (the “Confiscated Port” 

or “Puerto Carupano”) in violation of the Helms-Burton Act.3 Dkt. No. 1. (“Compl.”). The Act 

defines “trafficking” broadly to capture not only those who “use[]” or “engage[] in a commercial 

activity using or otherwise benefiting from” the confiscated property, but also those who 

“cause[], direct[], participate[] in, or profit[] from” such use or engagement, knowingly and 

intentionally. 22 U.S.C. § 6023(13)(A). Here, as American Sugar alleges in its complaint, 

Defendants illegally trafficked in confiscated property by participating in two shipments of wind 

farm equipment that intentionally stopped in Florida before proceeding directly to the 

Confiscated Port to complete delivery in Cuba. Compl. ¶¶ 134–38, 169–73; see also Dkt. No. 48 

at 5–6. 

 

3

 Title III of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (codified 

at 22 U.S.C. §§ 6081–85). 

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2020 Page 4 of 20
 5 

Specifically, Goldwind International, a foreign wind farm equipment manufacturer, 

caused its parent company, Xinjiang Goldwind Science & Technology Co., Ltd. (“Goldwind 

Science”), to ship wind farm equipment from China to a state-owned Cuban entity, Empresa 

Importadora-Exportadora de Objetivos Electro-Energéticos (“Energoimport”). Compl. ¶¶ 88–89, 

106, 149, 202. The equipment was loaded onto two shipping vessels, the BBC Moonstone and 

the BBC Jade, both of which belong to the “Briese Group,” a network of companies that includes 

BBC USA and BBC Singapore. Id. ¶¶ 23, 104, 111–13, 115, 154. 

Before arriving at the Confiscated Port, the BBC Moonstone and the BBC Jade each 

stopped in Florida not only to refuel and resupply, id. ¶¶ 134–39, 169–74, but also to comply 

with U.S. laws other than the Helms-Burton Act. As Defendant BBC Singapore admits, the 

equipment onboard the BBC Moonstone and BBC Jade was “deemed to be an export of U.S. 

manufactured goods, which required an export license and clearance by U.S. customs officials in 

the U.S.” See Dkt. No. 50-1 ¶ 16. Accordingly, before the equipment could be delivered to 

Cuba, both ships had to stop in Miami to obtain authorization under U.S. laws governing 

sanctions on Cuba, which provide for certain licenses to export “items from the United States to 

. . . Cuba.” 31 C.F.R. § 515.533. By contrast, had the two vessels traveled from China to Cuba 

without a stopover in Florida, the shipments would have been ineligible for such authorization 

under U.S. sanctions, since they would have lacked the requisite shipment designation “from the 

United States.” 

In addition, DSV, BBC USA, and BBC Singapore provided transportation and/or 

logistical services supporting the shipments, the two vessels, and their stops in Florida and Cuba. 

Compl. ¶¶ 108–15, 156–60. And after delivering equipment to the Confiscated Port, the BBC 

Moonstone proceeded to deliver cargo to BBC USA in Port Arthur, Texas. Id. ¶ 140. 

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2020 Page 5 of 20
 6 

B. Defendants Argue Lack of Personal Jurisdiction by Disputing Allegations in 

the Complaint and Denying Involvement in the Requisite Florida Stops 

Defendants filed their respective Rule 12(b)(2) Motions on August 31, 2020. Dkt. Nos. 

48, 52, 53. Without exception, each of those motions argues that this Court lacks personal 

jurisdiction over Defendants by disputing factual allegations in the complaint, while relying on a 

self-serving declaration from a corporate officer that attests to either no or limited involvement in 

the shipments’ stopovers in Florida before proceeding to the Confiscated Port.4 Dkt. No. 48 at 

2–7; Dkt. No. 52 at 2, 5; Dkt. No. 53 at 5. 

Notably, BBC Singapore, the only Defendant to submit documentary evidence regarding 

the two shipments, is also the only Defendant to admit that the intermediate stops were 

necessary. In BBC Singapore’s words, the Florida stopovers were “required because the cargo, 

which consisted in part of U.S.-manufactured goods, needed to clear U.S. customs in the U.S.” 

Schoennmann Decl. ¶ 20 (emphasis added). And the documents BBC Singapore attaches in 

support show that the BBC Jade and the BBC Moonstone stopped in Miami for the express 

purpose of obtaining necessary clearance from U.S. Customs to complete the shipments to the 

Confiscated Port. See Schoennmann Decl., Exhs. E–F (“Clearance is Granted to Foreign Port 

Named in Item 12,” i.e., “Puerto Carupano, Cuba”), Dkt. Nos. 50-5, 50-6. 

LEGAL STANDARDS 

Plaintiffs have “a qualified right to conduct jurisdictional discovery,” Aviation One of 

Fla., Inc. v. Airborne Ins. Consultants (PTY), Ltd, 722 F. App’x 870, 878 (11th Cir. 2018), which 

 

4

 Defendants submitted declarations from the following individuals: (1) Zhu Hui, Chief 

Financial Officer of Goldwind International, Dkt. No. 53-1 (“Hui Decl.”); (2) Kenneth 

Witkowski, Director of Quality & Compliance for DSV, Dkt. No. 52-1 (“Witkowski Decl.”); 

(3) Per Petersen, President of BBC USA, Dkt. No. 49 (“Petersen Decl.”); and (4) Lars 

Schoennmann, Managing Director of BBC Singapore, Dkt. No. 50 (“Schoennmann Decl.”). 

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2020 Page 6 of 20
 7 

is “highly favored” before resolving a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, 

S.A.S.B. Corp. v. Concordia Pharm., Inc., 2016 WL 10953760, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 26, 2016) 

(collecting cases). Accordingly, a federal court’s “power to order jurisdictional discovery” “‘is 

not entirely discretionary.’” RMS Titanic, Inc. v. Kingsmen Creatives, Ltd., 579 F. App’x 779, 

790 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting Eaton v. Dorchester Dev., Inc., 692 F.2d 727, 729 (11th Cir. 

1982)). “[R]esolution of a pretrial motion that turns on findings of fact—for example, a motion 

to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)—may require 

some limited discovery before a meaningful ruling can be made.” Id. (quoting Chudasama v. 

Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1367 (11th Cir. 1997)). 

Jurisdictional discovery “is appropriate when there is a dispute about the ‘facts that would 

support [the plaintiff’s] allegations of jurisdiction.’” Aviation One of Fla., 722 F. App’x at 878 

(quoting Majd-Pour v. Georgiana Cmty. Hosp., Inc., 724 F.2d 901, 903 (11th Cir. 1984)). “A 

genuine dispute exists when the Court ‘cannot resolve the [jurisdictional] issue without additional 

evidence.’” Deane v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. et al., No. 19-cv-23127 (J. Gayles), Paperless 

Order, Dkt. No. 33 (quoting Evans v. Wurkin Stiffs, Inc., No. 15-cv-61934, 2016 WL 8793339, at 

*5 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2016)) (citing Eaton, 692 F.2d at 729). In identifying such disputes, a 

plaintiff should “specify what information could or should be discovered through jurisdictional 

discovery that would affect the Court’s jurisdictional analysis.” Id. (quotation marks omitted) 

(citing Posner v. Essex Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 1209, 1214 n.7 (11th Cir. 1999)). 

ARGUMENT

I. This Court Should Grant Jurisdictional Discovery to Vet Defendants’ Denials of 

Involvement in the Requisite Florida Stops 

In response to American Sugar’s allegations regarding the two stops in Miami, Florida, 

Defendants marshal declarations from their respective personnel that soft-pedal or deny outright 

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2020 Page 7 of 20
 8 

their involvement in those stopovers. As explained below, these assertions reveal genuine 

disputes over “facts that would support [American Sugar’s] allegations of jurisdiction,” Aviation 

One of Fla., 722 F. App’x at 878, and warrant discovery—particularly where Defendants’ 

statements conflict with Defendants’ filings with the U.S. government and with Defendants’ 

public statements. 

A. DSV’s Denials Conflict with Its Prior Submissions to U.S. Customs and 

Consist of Conclusory Attempts to Downplay Its Involvement in the Florida 

Stopover 

The Court should permit American Sugar to take discovery from DSV so that it may 

obtain evidence regarding DSV’s involvement in the Florida stops and resolve the discrepancy 

between DSV’s statements to the Court and records DSV filed with U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (“U.S. Customs”). DSV attests that it “was not a carrier and did not provide 

transportation services” for the shipment of wind farm equipment onboard the BBC Moonstone 

to the Confiscated Port. Dkt. No. 52 at 2; Witkowski Decl. ¶¶ 8–23. But this denial contradicts 

DSV’s submissions to U.S. Customs in connection with that shipment. See Declaration of John 

Auerbach (“Auerbach Decl.”), Exhs. A-1, A-2. Those submissions list “DSVF” as the code for 

the relevant “Carrier.” DSVF is also the prefix used for the two bill of lading numbers listed in 

the U.S. Customs submissions (DSVFHPR0023755 and DSVFHPR0023752). DSV admits that 

“DSVF” is its unique, official Standard Carrier Alpha Code,5

 and that it did in fact use this code 

 

5

 Carrier companies that have registered with the National Motor Freight Traffic Association 

must use their unique Standard Carrier Alpha Code in their Cargo Declarations. See 19 C.F.R. 

§ 4.7a(c)(2)(iii). 

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2020 Page 8 of 20
 9 

in its submissions to U.S. Customs for the BBC Moonstone shipment. See Dkt. No. 52 at 2; 

Witkowski Decl. ¶ 8.6

 

DSV, however, claims that its use of “DSVF” was a “clerical error,” and that its 

submissions to U.S. Customs should have identified its affiliate, DSV Ocean Transport A/S, as 

the carrier for the BBC Moonstone shipment. Witkowski Decl. ¶ 8. Although DSV specifies 

two bills of lading numbers purportedly evincing this “clerical error,” see id., DSV did not attach 

those bills of lading—or for that matter, any underlying documents supporting its attached 

declaration—to its Rule 12(b)(2) Motion. That failure to provide supporting documentation 

warrants jurisdictional discovery, since “[a] plaintiff is not required to rely exclusively on a 

defendant’s affidavit for resolution of a jurisdictional issue.” Ash v. Royal Caribbean Cruises 

Ltd., 2013 WL 12122147, at *1 (S.D. Fla. June 11, 2013) (citing Blanco v. Carigulf Lines, 632 

F.2d 656, 658 (5th Cir. 1980)) (granting jurisdictional discovery). 

DSV’s assertions also conflict with information provided by another Defendant, BBC 

Singapore. The transportation documents BBC Singapore attached to its filings make no 

mention of DSV Ocean Transport A/S, which DSV claims was the actual carrier for the BBC 

Moonstone shipment. Instead, they record the participation of two other DSV affiliates, DSV 

Air & Sea A/S and DSV Air & Sea Co. Ltd. (Tianjin branch). See Schoennmann Decl., Exhs. 

A–C (chartering agreement and master bills of lading), Dkt. Nos. 50-2, 50-3, 50-4. Absent 

jurisdictional discovery, American Sugar will be unable to present additional evidence on 

whether and to what extent DSV and/or its affiliates were involved in the BBC Moonstone 

shipment. “Clearly, there is no way for [American Sugar] to have personal knowledge of the 

 

6

 See also DSV, Fact Sheet, DSV Global Transport and Logistics, https://www.us.dsv.com/ 

about-DSV/press/fact-sheet (last visited Sept. 29, 2020) (identifying “DSVF” as DSV’s 

“NVOCC SCAC Code”), cited in Compl. ¶ 117. 

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2020 Page 9 of 20
 10 

inner workings of [the DSV group’s] various business organizations,” Exhibit Icons, LLC v. XP 

Companies, LLC, 2008 WL 616104, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 3, 2008). Of course, regardless of 

whether one or more corporate affiliates of DSV also participated in the shipment to the 

Confiscated Port, DSV’s bare claim that its own filings with the U.S. government were somehow 

mistaken cannot defeat jurisdiction, and warrants further inquiry. Whether DSV participated 

directly or directed and/or caused one or more of these affiliates to arrange for the Miami stop is 

a factual determination that is material to the personal jurisdiction analysis. 

Further, despite broadly disclaiming involvement in many aspects of the BBC Moonstone 

shipment—again, without providing any supporting documentation, Witkowski Decl. ¶¶ 8–24— 

DSV nevertheless concedes that it participated in and supported the BBC Moonstone shipment 

through Miami and Cuba: its compliance personnel discussed a “limited compliance issue” 

regarding the BBC Moonstone shipment; called the Commerce Department to discuss the export 

license issued for the BBC Moonstone shipment; and electronically submitted the abovedescribed forms for the shipments to U.S. Customs. Witkowski Decl. ¶ 16. DSV styles these 

activities as “limited” and outside of Florida, id. ¶ 17, despite the fact that its marketing materials 

describe a comprehensive suite of U.S. Customs-related services and “Customs Agents” in 

Miami and Orlando.7

 In any event, DSV’s self-serving labels (which American Sugar disputes) 

coyly leave unanswered whether DSV’s activities were directed at Florida, where the BBC 

 

7

 See DSV Air & Sea Inc., US Customs Brokerage and Compliance Presentation, 2019, 

available at https://www.us.dsv.com/customs-brokerage/customs-brokerage (last visited Sept. 29, 

2020). While not a subject of this action, a Goldwind Science shipment of wind farm equipment 

to South Africa was supported by a DSV corporate affiliate that fully took care of “customs 

clearance, port charges and supervision.” DSV, Latest News, Playing our role in generating 

wind power, Sept. 10, 2019, https://www.za.dsv.com/About-DSV/press/News/2019/09/playingour-role-in-generating-wind-power (last visited Sept. 29, 2020). 

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2020 Page 10 of 20
 11 

Moonstone docked, and crew presented an export license to U.S. Customs officials. DSV’s 

silence on the matter provides additional support for permitting jurisdictional discovery in this 

case. See Ash, 2013 WL 12122147, at *1; Exhibit Icons, LLC, 2008 WL 616104, at *2. 

For these reasons, the Court should grant American Sugar leave to seek jurisdictional 

discovery from DSV. Such discovery will reveal the extent of DSV’s participation in the 

requisite Florida stops, and DSV’s other relevant contacts with Florida; in addition, it will permit 

American Sugar to obtain the evidentiary basis, if any, for (among other things) DSV’s 

assertions that: its submissions to U.S. Customs for the BBC Moonstone shipment was a 

“clerical error”; another affiliate was the actual carrier for that shipment; and its involvement in 

the BBC Moonstone’s requisite stop in Miami, Florida was “limited” or occurred solely outside 

Florida. 

B. Goldwind International’s Denials of Involvement Are Irreconcilable with the 

Company’s Prior Public Statements 

Jurisdictional discovery from Goldwind International is warranted because its prior 

public statements squarely belie its professed lack of involvement in the two shipments. See 

Dkt. No. 53 at 2–4. Goldwind International claims that it “is not a party to any contract with . . . 

Energoimport[], including but not limited to any contract regarding . . . the Herradura Wind 

Farm Project,” Hui Decl. ¶ 5; or to any contracts with common carriers, including BBC USA, 

BBC Singapore, or DSV, regarding the Herradura Wind Farm Project, id. ¶¶ 6–7. But Goldwind 

International’s prior public statements flatly contradict these representations to the Court. In 

2013, Goldwind International reported “sign[ing] a 51MW wind turbine supply contract with 

Energoimport[,]” in which it would provide customized wind turbines for “[t]he La Herradura 

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2020 Page 11 of 20
 12 

project.”8 Then in its 2017 quarterly report (referenced in the complaint), Goldwind 

International again reported signing a “commercial contract for the 51MW La Herradura Phase I 

wind farm project with Cuba Energy Import Company (Energoimport).”9 See Compl. ¶ 91. The 

news of Goldwind International’s supply contract was widely reported in the press.10 And 

Goldwind International’s above-described publications identify Goldwind International as the 

party to the agreement, and nowhere suggests that some other corporate affiliate was the actual 

signatory. Moreover, as a wholly owned subsidiary of Goldwind Science, Goldwind 

International had no reason to announce the activities of its parent. 

Here, however, Goldwind International fails to acknowledge its prior public statements 

regarding its supply deal with Energoimport. Instead, Goldwind International cagily asserts it is 

not currently a party to any contracts with Energoimport or any of the other Defendants (or their 

affiliates)—without addressing whether Goldwind International has ever contracted with such 

entities regarding the relevant shipments through Florida. See Hui Decl. ¶¶ 5–7. 

In short, the only evidence submitted by Goldwind International in support of its Rule 

12(b)(2) Motion is a declaration conveniently asserting its lack of involvement in the Florida 

stops. See id. American Sugar should be afforded the opportunity to test these blanket 

 

8

 Goldwind International, Goldwind Wins 51MW Wind Turbine Order in Cuba, Dec. 18, 2013, 

available at http://www.goldwindinternational.com/content/details_16_298.html?_sm_au_ 

=iVVKNjJT4S4QP54MFcVTvKQkcK8MG (last visited Sept. 29, 2020). 

9

 Goldwind International, GWI Quarterly Q2 2017, Volumes 8, 10, available at 

http://www.goldwindinternational.com/upload/contents/2017/07/20170711143813_72618.pdf 

(last visited Sept. 29, 2020). 

10 See, e.g., Stephen Nielsen & Feifei Shen, Goldwind Supplies 51 Megawatts of Wind Turbines 

for Cuba Project, Bloomberg, Dec. 18, 2013, available at https://www.bloomberg.com/ 

news/articles/2013-12-18/goldwind-supplies-51-megawatts-of-wind-turbines-for-cuba-project 

(last visited Sept. 29, 2020); Mao Pengfei, Goldwind wins 51MW deal in Cuba, Wind Power 

Monthly, Dec. 19, 2013, available at https://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1225321/ 

goldwind-wins-51mw-deal-cuba (last visited Sept. 29, 2020). 

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2020 Page 12 of 20
 13 

statements through discovery. See Ash, 2013 WL 12122147, at *1; Perricone v. Carnival 

Corporation, No. 15-cv-20309 (J. Gayles), Endorsed Order Staying Case, Dkt. No. 32 (S.D. Fla. 

Sept. 9, 2016) (allowing jurisdictional discovery where a defendant filed an affidavit containing 

boilerplate statements that they lacked contacts with Florida); id., Dkt. No. 24 at 3 (plaintiff’s 

request for jurisdictional discovery, quoting defendant’s affidavit); see also Blanco, 632 F.2d at 

658. Given Goldwind International’s prior statements, which announce its commercial deal with 

Energoimport to (among other things) supply wind farm equipment, one would expect Goldwind 

International to have caused or otherwise been involved in arranging for the delivery of the 

relevant equipment to Energoimport—including any stops in the United States necessary to 

comply with U.S. sanctions laws. Discovery here should therefore reveal the precise role 

Goldwind International played in the requisite Florida stops and any other relevant contacts with 

Florida. 

C. BBC USA’s Blanket Denial of Involvement Is at Odds with Its PubliclyDisclosed Role for Shipments Such as Those in this Case 

BBC USA’s blanket denial of involvement in the at-issue shipments likewise merits 

examination through jurisdictional discovery. BBC USA claims that it “did not act as agent for 

the charters of the two ships’ voyages involved in this case,” Dkt. No. 48 at 3, and goes on to 

assert that it— 

 “has not conducted, and currently does not conduct, any business or operations in or 

from the State of Florida, or from anywhere else, that involve the shipment of goods 

to or from Puerto Carupano . . . ,” Petersen Decl. ¶ 7; 

 “played no role, as agents for the vessel operators or otherwise, in connection with the 

charters of the BBC Moonstone or the BBC Jade, which involved shipments of 

equipment from China to Cuba and that are the subject of the complaint in this 

action,” id. ¶ 8; and 

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2020 Page 13 of 20
 14 

 “did not provide support of any kind, including logistical support, for the vessels in 

connection with the charters for or the delivery of cargo to [Puerto Carupano],” id. ¶ 

9. 

But publicly available information regarding BBC USA’s operations casts doubt on these 

statements. BBC USA is located in the Houston area, is a part of the Briese Group, and is the 

Briese Group’s key regional office and agent in the United States.11 According to BBC 

Chartering’s website, when any Briese Group ship reaches the Gulf of Mexico or the Caribbean 

Sea, BBC USA becomes the point of contact for that particular ship.12 Consequently, even if 

BBC USA did not initially charter the relevant shipments to the Confiscated Port, it nonetheless 

would have supported them (directly or indirectly) once they fell within BBC USA’s regional 

ambit.13 

 In addition, BBC USA does not dispute that it arranged for certain equipment to be 

delivered to it in Port Arthur, Texas and that this equipment was on board the BBC Moonstone 

when it stopped at, and benefited from, ports in Florida and Cuba (the stops immediately 

preceding the Texas delivery). Dkt. No. 48 at 4. But BBC USA is completely silent as to any 

additional Florida contacts related to this Texas shipment or otherwise. Indeed, evidence 

 

11 See BBC Chartering: Houston, https://www.bbc-chartering.com/informations/contact/northamerica/houston.html (last visited Sept. 29, 2020) (identifying BBC USA as “agents” located in 

Houston). 

12 See BBC Chartering – Worldwide Sailings, Sept. 29, 2020, https://www.bbc-chartering.com/ 

fileadmin/user_upload/Downloads/Worldwide_Positions.pdf (last visited Sept. 29, 2020) (listing 

ships in the “US Gulf,” for which the “Houston office” should be contacted). 

13 In addition, BBC Singapore and BBC USA assert that non-party BBC Chartering Carriers 

GmbH was the “operator” of both the BBC Moonstone and BBC Jade, and claim that American 

Sugar incorrectly identified non-party BBC Chartering & Logistic GmbH & Co. KG (“BBC 

Logistic”) as the operator of the BBC Jade. Yet, submissions to the U.S. Customs regarding the 

relevant BBC Jade shipments identify the “Carrier” as “ BBCH,” the official Standard Carrier 

Alpha Code for BBC Logistic. See Auerbach Decl., Exhs. A-3, A-4. 

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2020 Page 14 of 20
 15 

provided by BBC Singapore suggests that this Texas-bound equipment was involved in the U.S. 

Customs clearance process in Miami, which itself was necessary to ensure that the shipment of 

wind farm equipment to the Confiscated Port did not violate additional federal laws. See

Schoennmann Decl., Exh. E (Clearance Statement issued by U.S. Customs stating that BBC 

Moonstone was carrying cargo destined for “Port Arthur, TX via Port Carupano”), Dkt. No. 50-

6.14 

As with Goldwind International, the only evidence submitted by BBC USA in support of 

its Rule 12(b)(2) Motion is a single declaration containing blanket statements denying its 

involvement in the Florida stop. American Sugar should be afforded the chance to test these 

statements and seek evidence of BBC USA’s relevant contacts with Florida. See Ash, 2013 WL 

12122147, at *1; Perricone, No. 15-cv-20309 (J. Gayles), Endorsed Order Staying Case, Dkt. 

No. 32. Jurisdictional discovery will help show (among other things): (1) the degree of BBC 

USA’s involvement in the Florida stop of the shipments of wind farm equipment to Cuba and/or 

the shipment of equipment to Texas by way of Florida and Cuba; and (2) BBC USA’s other 

relevant contacts with Florida. In particular, such discovery should reveal whether and to what 

extent BBC USA was in contact with the masters of the BBC Jade and the BBC Moonstone, the 

Florida port agents, and any other Florida entities or persons that were involved in the shipments 

at issue in this case. See Schoennmann Decl., Exhs. D–E (Clearance Statements stating the ship 

master and port agent of the BBC Moonstone and BBC Jade), Dkt. Nos. 50-5, 50-6. 

 

14 BBC Singapore appears to have attached only the first two pages of the Clearance Statement. 

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2020 Page 15 of 20
 16 

D. American Sugar Should Be Permitted to Probe BBC Singapore’s Admitted 

Involvement in the Shipments at Issue and Its Assertion That the Florida 

Stopovers Were “Incidental” 

Critically, BBC Singapore’s declaration largely supports the Court’s exercise of personal 

jurisdiction. Consistent with American Sugar’s allegations, Compl. ¶¶ 115, 160, BBC Singapore 

admits that it “acted as agent” for its affiliate BBC Chartering Carriers GmbH & Co. KG (“BBC 

Carriers”) in connection with chartering the BBC Moonstone and BBC Jade: it signed the 

relevant chartering agreement on BBC Carriers’ behalf, issued master bills of lading for the 

shipped goods, and obtained clearances for those goods from U.S. Customs officials in Miami, 

Florida. Dkt. No. 48 at 5–6. 

Moreover, BBC Singapore admits that the Miami stops were deliberately aimed at 

ensuring completion of the shipment to the Confiscated Port in compliance with additional 

federal laws: Those stops were “required because the cargo, which consisted in part of U.S.-

manufactured goods, needed to clear U.S. customs in the U.S.,” Schoennmann Decl. ¶ 20 

(emphasis added). In addition, the relevant chartering agreement, which BBC Singapore signed 

(thereby agreeing to execute a shipment stopping in Miami), clearly states that the shipments will 

proceed from “Tianjin, Lingang terminal via Miami, US to Carupano, Cuba.” Schoennmann 

Decl., Exh. A, Dkt. No. 50-2. The Miami stops are further integrated into the terms of the 

chartering agreement. Id. at 7 (while in Miami, a 24-hour grace period is provided to account for 

“[t]ime lost due to swell/tide/congestion”). There is also a provision addressing the export 

license that was ultimately presented in Miami. Id. at 8 (“DSV (Merchants) warrant and 

guarantee that all licenses/permits are in order and approved by the US Department of 

Commerce and, if required, by the Office of Foreign Asset Control, and that the cargo is nonsanctioned.”). 

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2020 Page 16 of 20
 17 

BBC Singapore, however, nevertheless insists that these facts do not suffice for the Court 

to exercise personal jurisdiction over it. In light of this denial, discovery is warranted for at least 

two reasons. First, BBC Singapore’s declaration contradicts its Rule 12(b)(2) Motion by stating 

that it was BBC Carriers (not BBC Singapore) that issued the master bills of lading. Compare 

Schoennmann Decl. ¶¶ 11, 13, with Dkt. No. 48 at 6. American Sugar should be afforded the 

opportunity to conduct discovery on this point, and not be limited to what BBC Singapore elects 

to disclose. 

Second, despite its admissions, BBC Singapore characterizes the Miami, Florida stops as 

“incidental,” id. at 19, because “[n]either BBC Carriers nor BBC Singapore requested or required 

that the ships stop in Florida on their way to Cuba,” Schoennmann Decl. ¶ 20. If so, then 

American Sugar should be permitted to conduct discovery on the factual basis for BBC 

Singapore’s claim that the Miami stops were merely “incidental.” Such discovery is important, 

since it is simply implausible that BBC Singapore (or any Defendant, for that matter) would have 

planned and/or executed a shipment to the Confiscated Port without taking what it considered to 

be a necessary step to ensure compliance with applicable U.S. trade laws (i.e., stopping in 

Miami). American Sugar thus has a reasonable basis for seeking jurisdictional discovery, which 

would aid the Court in resolving this dispute. 

And while BBC Singapore admits to signing chartering agreements, issuing bills of 

lading, and receiving clearance statements, nowhere in its declaration does BBC Singapore aver 

that these activities comprise the full extent of its contacts with Florida. Jurisdictional discovery 

should reveal the degree of BBC Singapore’s involvement in the Florida stops. In particular, 

such discovery could shed light on: (1) the extent to which BBC Singapore actively tracked and 

managed the ships as they docked in Miami; (2) whether it communicated with BBC USA as 

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2020 Page 17 of 20
 18 

part of this process; and (3) the nature of any contact with the masters of the BBC Jade and the 

BBC Moonstone, the Florida port agents, and/or any other Florida entities or persons that were 

engaged, see Schoennmann Decl., Exhs. D–E (Clearance Statements), Dkt. Nos. 50-5, 50-6. 

 * * *

“A plaintiff faced with a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is entitled to 

reasonable discovery, lest the defendant defeat the jurisdiction of a federal court by withholding 

information on its contacts with the forum.” UnitedHealthcare of Fla., Inc. v. Am. Renal Assocs. 

Holdings, Inc., 2016 WL 8794534, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 5, 2016). As explained above, 

Defendants’ efforts to deny or downplay their involvement in the at-issue shipments or the 

intermediate stops in Florida raise not only material disputes over jurisdictional facts, but also 

serious questions as to whether Defendants are withholding information regarding their 

respective in-forum contacts. Jurisdictional discovery is therefore warranted. 

II. American Sugar’s Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery Is Timely 

American Sugar has fulfilled its obligation to file a timely motion for jurisdictional 

discovery. See Mother Doe I v. Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, 632 F. Supp. 2d 

1130, 1146 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (“The decision to allow jurisdictional discovery is very much a 

product of the timing and nature of any jurisdictional discovery request.”). American Sugar has 

not “waited a substantial amount of time to seek discovery or failed to file a formal motion to 

take discovery.” Elardi v. I.S. Makinen Oy, 2019 WL 6003210, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 14, 2019). 

Consistent with cases in this Circuit that finding jurisdictional discovery motions were timely, 

American Sugar has filed this motion approximately three-and-a-half months after filing the 

complaint, just 29 days after Defendants filed their Rule 12(b)(2) Motions, and before the 

disposition of those motions. See id. (finding plaintiff’s motion for jurisdictional discovery 

timely where, among other things, it was filed before a ruling on a motion to dismiss, and four 

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2020 Page 18 of 20
 19 

months after the complaint was filed); Birkenfeld v. Lauder, No. 19-cv-21871, Order, Dkt. No. 

68 at 4 (“Plaintiff’s Motion [for jurisdictional discovery] is timely, having been filed just 35 days 

after [the] Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction was filed.”); McCullough v. Royal 

Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., No. 16-cv-20194 (J. Gayles), Order, Dkt. No. 189 (granting 

jurisdictional discovery motion filed 35 days after the motion to dismiss was filed, and over four 

months after filing the second amended complaint). 

CONCLUSION 

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, American Sugar respectfully requests that this 

Court allow American Sugar a period of sixty (60) days within which to conduct discovery on 

issues of personal jurisdiction raised by Defendants (including third-party discovery as 

appropriate), and an additional twenty-one (21) days from the close of the aforementioned 

discovery to file its consolidated response to each of Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(2) Motions. 

LOCAL RULE 7.1(a)(3) CERTIFICATION 

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(3), the undersigned counsel hereby certifies that he 

conferred with counsel for Defendants regarding this request in a good faith effort to resolve the 

issues raised in the motion, but the parties were unable to do so. 

Dated: September 29, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

Miguel A. Estrada (pro hac vice) 

Audi K. Syarief (pro hac vice) 

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 

1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20036-5306 

Telephone: (202) 955-8257 

Facsimile: (202) 530-9616 

mestrada@gibsondunn.com 

asyarief@gibsondunn.com 

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2020 Page 19 of 20
 20 

Andrea E. Neuman (pro hac vice) 

Rahim Moloo (pro hac vice) 

Casey Kyung-Se Lee (pro hac vice) 

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 

200 Park Avenue, 47th Floor 

New York, NY 10166-0193 

Telephone: (212) 351-3883 

Facsimile: (212) 351-5303 

aneuman@gibsondunn.com 

rmoloo@gibsondunn.com 

clee@gibsondunn.com 

David S. Mandel 

David S. Mandel 

FBN 38040 

MANDEL & MANDEL LLP 

169 East Flagler Street, Suite 1224 

Miami, FL 33131 

Telephone: (305) 374-7771 

dsm@mandel.law 

Counsel for Plaintiff North American Sugar 

Industries Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that, on September 29, 2020, the foregoing document was electronically 

filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such 

filing to all counsel of record. 

David S. Mandel

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2020 Page 20 of 20