55003053;1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION 

Case No.: 20-cv-22471-GAYLES/Otazo-Reyes 

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. 

/ 

BBC’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS (1) FOR LEAVE TO 

CONDUCT JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY AND (2) TO STAY THE 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON THE PERSONAL JURISDICTION MOTIONS 

AKERMAN LLP 

Three Brickell City Centre 

98 Southeast Seventh Street, Suite 1100 

Miami, FL 33131 

Tel.: 305-374-5600 

Fax: 305-349-4656 

Attorneys for Defendants 

BBC Chartering USA, LLC and 

BBC Chartering Singapore Pte Ltd. 

October 12, 2020 

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/12/2020 Page 1 of 16
55003053;1 

Defendants BBC Chartering USA, LLC (“BBC USA”) and BBC Chartering Singapore 

Pte Ltd. (“BBC Singapore”) (each a “BBC Defendant” and jointly “BBC Defendants”) submit 

this opposition to the motions of North American Sugar Industries Inc. (“Plaintiff”) (a) for leave 

to conduct jurisdictional discovery (ECF No. 59), and (b) to stay the briefing schedule on the 

personal jurisdiction motions filed by the BBC Defendants and the other defendants (ECF No. 

60). 

Introduction 

Although a district court should allow a plaintiff to take jurisdictional discovery in 

appropriate circumstances – when there are legitimate factual issues bearing on a jurisdictional 

motion, plaintiff has identified specific discovery it needs concerning outcome-determinative 

facts, and there is no serious question as to the court’s subject matter jurisdiction – such 

circumstances are not present in this case, particularly as to the BBC Defendants. 

The BBC Defendants submitted, with their motion to dismiss for lack of personal 

jurisdiction, declarations and the relevant actual shipping documents, disclosing and evidencing 

their respective involvement and Florida contacts, or lack thereof, in connection with the two 

shipments on which the claims in this case are based. Plaintiff, in support of its motion for leave 

to take discovery, submitted (through a declaration of a researcher with no involvement in the 

events of this case) four printouts from a commercial website purporting to summarize details of 

those shipments. Those summaries contain glaring material errors, as shown below, and 

therefore do not rebut or raise legitimate factual questions about the shipments’ details as shown 

in the actual, official and authentic shipping documents that BBC Singapore – which acted as 

agent for the carrier on both voyages – submitted. 

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/12/2020 Page 2 of 16
- 2 - 

55003053;1 

Additionally, Plaintiff fails to identify the specific facts it wishes to discover from the 

BBC Defendants, instead asserting that it wants to inquire about any and all contacts by the BBC 

Defendants with Florida. Nor does Plaintiff specify the discovery methods it would use – 

document requests, interrogatories or oral depositions. Instead, Plaintiff seeks open-ended leave 

to take any and all jurisdiction-related discovery, from non-parties as well as all defendants, and 

by any means, including “remote depositions” (assuming they are available) (ECF No. 59 at 1). 

That is a classic “fishing expedition,” which is never appropriate, especially when, as in this 

case, a pending motion to dismiss raises a serious challenge to the Court’s subject-matter 

jurisdiction (among other dismissal grounds).1

For the reasons discussed below, the Court should deny Plaintiff’s request to take 

discovery from the BBC Defendants. As to Plaintiff’s related motion (ECF No. 60) to stay the 

briefing on the three pending personal jurisdiction motions, the Court instead should stay the 

personal jurisdiction motions entirely – including whether any discovery for those motions is 

appropriate – until the Court has decided defendants’ joint dismissal motion.2 The briefing on the 

joint dismissal motion is proceeding as scheduled, with Plaintiff’s opposition due on October 14, 

2020 (see ECF No. 60, ¶ 2). 

Legal Standard 

Federal courts have the power to order jurisdictional discovery, Eaton v. Dorchester 

Dev., Inc., 692 F.2d 727, 729 (11th Cir. 1982), and should do so when specific information a 

1

 In their joint motion to dismiss (ECF No. 54), defendants assert, among other things, that the 

Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction both because Plaintiff lacks Article III standing and 

because Plaintiff relinquished its claim to its creditors and the bankruptcy court in its 2019 

bankruptcy. 

2

 Today, Defendants filed their joint motion to stay the personal jurisdiction motions entirely 

pending the Court’s decision on defendants’ joint motion to dismiss. 

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/12/2020 Page 3 of 16
- 3 - 

55003053;1 

plaintiff seeks, “if it exists, would give rise to jurisdiction.” RMS Titanic, Inc. v. Kingsmen 

Creatives, Ltd., 579 Fed. Appx. 779, 790 (11th Cir. 2014). See also Chudasama v. Mazda Motor 

Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1367 (11th Cir. 1997) (“Resolution 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.”) (italics added). Plaintiffs therefore have “a qualified right to conduct jurisdictional 

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

added). 

Because the right is qualified, jurisdictional discovery is not appropriate in every case. 

There must be a “genuine dispute on a material jurisdictional fact to warrant jurisdictional 

discovery.” Serra-Cruz v. Carnival Corp., 400 F. Supp. 3d 1354, 1363 (S.D. Fla. 2019) (citing 

Peruyero v. Airbus S.A.S., 83 F. Supp. 3d 1283, 1290 (S.D. Fla. 2014), and Yepez v. Regent 

Seven Seas Cruises, No. 10-23920-CIV, 2011 WL 3439943, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 5, 2011)). See 

also RMS Titanic, 579 Fed. Appx. at 791 (district court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

jurisdictional discovery where “the facts [plaintiff] sought would not have affected the district 

court’s jurisdiction”); Deane v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. et al., No. 19-cv-23127 (Gayles, 

J.), Paperless Order, ECF No. 33 (Dec. 10, 2019) – a ruling plaintiff cited in its motion (ECF No. 

59 at 7) – in which this Court denied jurisdictional discovery where “Plaintiff fail[ed] to establish 

a genuine factual dispute that must be resolved for the Court to determine whether it has personal 

jurisdiction over Defendants,” and “Plaintiff fail[ed] to specify what information could or should 

be discovered through jurisdictional discovery that would affect the Court’s jurisdictional 

analysis”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/12/2020 Page 4 of 16
- 4 - 

55003053;1 

Illustrating that that the right to jurisdictional discovery is qualified, the Eleventh Circuit 

in some cases has reversed a trial court’s denial of jurisdictional discovery, e.g., Eaton (ordering 

discovery of facts bearing on subject-matter jurisdiction), and in other cases has affirmed such 

denial, e.g., RMS Titanic, supra; and Posner v. Essex Ins. Co., Ltd., 178, F.3d 1209, 1214 n.7 

(11th Cir. 1999) (upholding district court’s denial of personal jurisdiction discovery where 

plaintiffs “failed to specify what they thought could or should be discovered”). As shown below, 

discovery concerning personal jurisdiction as to the BBC Defendants is neither necessary nor 

appropriate because Plaintiff has not raised a genuine dispute on a material fact that would 

warrant discovery and has not specified the discovery it would take. 

ARGUMENT 

A. The BBC Entities Have Already Submitted 

the Actual Relevant Documents and Information

BBC Singapore submitted with its Rule 12(b)(2) motion the actual shipping documents, 

along with a detailed declaration of its Managing Director, which evidence: (a) the actual ships’ 

itineraries and other details of the two shipments involved in this case; (b) BBC Singapore’s role 

as agent for the carrier (shipowner) in both voyages; and (c) its connections (or lack thereof) with 

Florida and the U.S., both as to the two voyages in question and generally. (ECF No. 50-1 

[Schoennmann Decl.]; ECF No. 50-2 through ECF No. 50-6 [shipping documents].) 

BBC USA submitted a detailed declaration of its President: (a) attesting that it did not act 

as agent for the two voyages (rather, BBC Singapore did); (b) attesting that it had no 

involvement in either shipment; and (c) describing its contacts with Florida (or lack thereof) and 

with the U.S. in connection with other shipments, unrelated to the ones involved in this case. 

(ECF No. 49-1 [Petersen Decl.].) 

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/12/2020 Page 5 of 16
- 5 - 

55003053;1 

In its motion for leave to take jurisdictional discovery, Plaintiff submits nothing to rebut 

or question any of the documents or information that BBC Singapore or BBC USA submitted.3

The four documents that plaintiff submitted are demonstrably inaccurate, as shown in Point B 

below, and raise no factual disputes that the Court must resolve in deciding whether it has 

personal jurisdiction over either BBC Defendant. 

B. Plaintiff Relies on Inaccurate Information 

In support of its motion to take jurisdictional discovery, Plaintiff submitted four 

documents, through the declaration of a researcher unaffiliated with any party or other entity that 

was involved in the two shipments in question (ECF No. 59-1 [Auerbach Decl. with exhibits]). 

The documents are not actual or official shipping documents; rather, they’re printouts from a 

commercial website, panjiva.com, which collects data on shipments worldwide and publishes 

summaries for subscribers (Auerbach Decl. ¶ 3). Exhibits A-1 and A-2 each summarize 

information from two “house” bills of lading for goods carried by the BBC Moonstone, and 

Exhibits A-3 and A-4 do likewise for the BBC Jade. These panjiva.com summaries contain 

blatant material inaccuracies. 

All four summaries state that the “Port of Unlading” is “Port Of Entry-Miami Seaport, 

Miami, Florida.” In fact, as the official U.S. Customs clearing documents state for both 

3

 In a footnote, Plaintiff notes that the BBC Defendants state that the carrier for both ships was 

BBC Chartering Carriers GmbH (“BBC Carriers”), but claims that “submissions to the U.S. 

Customs” identify the carrier for the BBC Jade by the Standard Carrier Alpha Code “BBCH,” 

which corresponds to BBC Chartering & Logistic GmbH & Co. KG (“BBC Logistic”) (D.E. 59 

at 14 n.13 [citing Auerbach Decl. Ex’s A-3 and A-4]). Not only does Plaintiff rely on 

demonstrably inaccurate (and hearsay) documents to cite this supposed discrepancy (Point B 

above), but, even if BBC Logistic rather than BBC Carriers had been the carrier for the BBC 

Jade (though it was not), that would be irrelevant to whether the Court has personal jurisdiction 

over either BBC Defendant; BBC Chartering and BBC Logistic are both Germany-based 

affiliates of the BBC Defendants, and neither is named as a defendant in this case. 

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/12/2020 Page 6 of 16
- 6 - 

55003053;1 

shipments, the cargo was “IN TRANSIT” and therefore designated “FROB (Foreign Cargo to 

Remain on Board)” (ECF No. 50-5, page 2 of 4, boxes 16 and 30; ECF No. 50-6, Page 2 of 5, 

boxes 16 and 30).4

Plaintiff evidently relied on this incorrect information in alleging in the complaint that 

“BBC Carriers issued a master bill of lading . . . to DSV which . . . misrepresented the shipment 

destination and port of unlading as Miami, Florida, and the Miami Seaport, respectively – in 

violation of U.S. law” (ECF No. 1 ¶ 122; see also id. ¶ 241 [alleging that all defendants 

conspired to hide that Cuba was the ultimate destination of the goods by “present[ing] false legal 

documentation . . . representing that the Goldwind Equipment would be unloaded in Miami”]). 

This is Plaintiff’s main contention in trying to establish a factual link, for purposes of long-arm 

jurisdiction, among the BBC Defendants, Florida, and the claim. But, the BBC Defendants 

showed beyond dispute, in their motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, that 

Plaintiff’s “conspiracy” allegation is false, because all of BBC Singapore’s shipping documents 

– including the master bills of lading (issued by BBC Singapore as agent for BBC Carriers) and 

the U.S. Customs certifications – expressly stated that the goods’ destination was Puerto 

Carupano, Cuba (ECF No. 48 [motion] at 14 [and exhibits cited therein]). In its motion to take 

jurisdictional discovery, Plaintiff makes no mention of its complaint’s incendiary (and shown to 

be false) allegation that the BBC Defendants submitted any false documents to U.S. authorities 

in Florida. 

The route map in each of the panjiva.com summaries is also inaccurate. None shows that 

either ship docked in Cuba. The two maps for the BBC Moonstone show a route from China to 

4

 In this regard, each panjiva.com document is also internally inconsistent. In one place, it states 

that the place of unlading was Miami; lower on the same page, it states “true” for “FROB” 

(foreign cargo to remain on board). ECF No. 59-1 at pages 7, 11, 15 and 19 of 20. 

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/12/2020 Page 7 of 16
- 7 - 

55003053;1 

Miami to Mexico (ECF No. 59-1, pages 6 and 10 of 20). The two for the BBC Jade show a route 

from China to Miami (id., pages 14 and 18 of 20). 

The arrival dates for both ships are also incorrect in the panjiva.com summaries. They 

state that the BBC Moonstone arrived in Miami on February 3, 2019 (ECF No. 59-1, pages 6 and 

10 of 20). That is impossible, as the official U.S. Customs document that BBC Singapore 

submitted states that the cargo both arrived and was cleared in Miami four days earlier, on 

January 30, 2019 (ECF No. 50-6, page 2 of 5 [box 3 and red stamp, bottom right]). For the BBC 

Jade, the panjiva.com summaries state that it arrived in Miami on December 7, 2018 (ECF No. 

59-1, pages 14 and 18 of 20). That is highly doubtful on its face (and factually wrong), as U.S. 

Customs cleared that shipment on December 30, 2018 (ECF No. 50-5, page 2 of 4), which would 

mean, if panjiva.com’s reported December 7 arrival date were believed, that the ship stayed in 

the Miami port some 23 days, solely for cargo clearance. The complaint itself alleges, contrary to 

the panjiva.com summaries, that the BBC Jade arrived in Miami on December 30, 2018, and 

departed the next day, December 31 (ECF No. 1, ¶ 177 [table]). 

These obvious inaccuracies (among others) in the panjiva.com summaries may be 

partially explained by the fact that they are purportedly based on the “house” bills of lading (ECF 

No. 59-1, pages 6, 10, 14 and 18 of 20 [each stating: “Shipment Profile for House Bill of 

Lading”]). As Plaintiff alleges in the complaint, the “house” bill of lading is issued, not by the 

vessel operating common carrier, or VOCC (in this case, BBC Carriers through its agent BBC 

Singapore), but by the non-vessel operating common carrier, or NVOCC (in this case, DSV Air 

& Sea A/S, or its agent) (ECF No. 1, ¶ 100). BBC Singapore submitted the “master” bills of 

lading that it, as agent for the VOCC, actually issued (ECF No. 50-3 and 50-4) (see also ECF 

No. 1, ¶ 100 [defining “master” bill of lading]). The master bill of lading for the BBC Jade states, 

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/12/2020 Page 8 of 16
- 8 - 

55003053;1 

for example, that BBC Carriers was the carrier (ECF No. 50-3, p. 2 of 2 [lower left]) – contrary 

to plaintiff’s claim, based on the prefix to the bill of lading that someone other than BBC 

Singapore evidently tacked on, that the carrier was BBC Logistic (see page 5 n.3 above). 

The inadequacy of the panjiva.com summaries also shows that Plaintiff cannot make a 

prima facie case of personal jurisdiction as to the BBC Defendants, which is a further reason for 

denying Plaintiff’s request for jurisdictional discovery. When a defendant submits affidavits that 

contradict the jurisdictional allegations in the complaint – as the BBC Defendants have done –

“the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to produce evidence supporting personal jurisdiction.” 

Stubbs v. Wyndham Nassau Resort & Crystal Palace Casino, 447 F.3d 1357, 1360 (11th Cir. 

2006). Plaintiff seeks discovery despite being unable to rebut the BBC Defendants’ declarations 

and documents. But, when a plaintiff fails to make a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction in 

the face of defendants’ affidavits and documents, it is not entitled to jurisdictional discovery. See 

Butler v. Sukhoi Co., 579 F.3d 1307, 1314 (11th Cir. 2009) (“Inasmuch as the complaint was 

insufficient as a matter of law to establish a prima facie case that the district court had [subjectmatter] jurisdiction [under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act], the district court abused its 

discretion in allowing the case to proceed and granting discovery on the jurisdictional issue.”); 

Cold Smoke Capital, LLC v. Gross, 2012 WL 3612626 (N.D. Ga. 2012), at *8 (disallowing 

jurisdictional discovery where plaintiff did not make a “prima facie showing of personal 

jurisdiction” over defendants) (collecting cases). 

In sum, the supposedly “factual” material – the panjiva.com summaries – that Plaintiff 

submitted with its motion to take jurisdictional discovery from the BBC Defendants does nothing 

to show that Plaintiff legitimately needs any additional information concerning the shipments, 

beyond the actual and official shipping documents that BBC Singapore has already submitted. 

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/12/2020 Page 9 of 16
- 9 - 

55003053;1 

C. Jurisdictional Discovery from the BBC Defendants Is Unnecessary 

Plaintiff does not show that any of the discovery it seeks from either BBC Defendant is 

relevant to or would affect the Court’s decision on whether it has personal jurisdiction over it. 

BBC USA. Plaintiff’s lead-off and main argument as to why it supposedly needs 

discovery from BBC USA is that “publicly available information regarding BBC USA’s 

operations casts doubt” on the declaration of BBC USA’s President, Per Petersen, that BBC USA 

was not the agent for and provided no logistical support or other services for either shipment in 

question (ECF No. 59 at 14; see also id. at 13 [quoting from Petersen decl.]). The “publicly 

available information” is a PDF, accessible on the website of BBC USA’s affiliate, BBC 

Carriers, which shows the positions of its more than 150 ships during October 2020 (id. n.13).5

The PDF is divided into several geographic regions, one of which is “USA / Central America / 

Caribbean Sea / NCSA [North Coast South America],” which states: “(contact: Houston office).” 

The Houston office is that of BBC USA, as “agents” for BBC Carriers.6

This document – a general statement to interested persons that, if they wish to inquire 

about chartering a vessel located in a given geographic area, they should contact the BBC 

Carriers affiliate in that area – does not contradict or raise doubts about Petersen’s specific

statement, made under penalty of perjury, that BBC USA provided no services in connection 

with the BBC Moonstone or BBC Jade voyages at issue in this case. Plaintiff recognizes that this 

is the case and is simply speculating; Plaintiff states that, even if BBC USA was not the agent for 

these voyages, it “would have provided” services to the ships “once they fell within BBC USA’s 

5

 For the Court’s convenience we attach that PDF to this opposition as “Exhibit A.”

6

See the contact page for the Houston office on the BBC Carriers website, https://www.bbcchartering.com/informations/contact/north-america/houston.html (last visited Oct. 11, 2020). 

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/12/2020 Page 10 of 16
- 10 - 

55003053;1 

regional ambit” (italics added) – using the conditional (and speculative) form “would have,” as it 

did in its complaint (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 112, 158). 

Further, while each vessel was in Florida, it was serviced by an unrelated ship’s agent, 

Seaport Hub Agencies, Inc., as stated in the U.S. Customs certifications (ECF No. 50-5, page 2 

of 4, box 7 and ECF No. 50-6, page 2 of 5, box 7). This is consistent with Petersen’s declaration, 

in that the ships were serviced by an independent agent (not by BBC USA) while they were in 

the Miami port.7

Plaintiff claims to need discovery concerning equipment – unrelated to the wind power 

equipment delivered to Cuba that is the subject of this case – that was also loaded on the BBC 

Moonstone in China, stayed on the ship while in Florida and Cuba, and ultimately was delivered 

to Port Arthur, Texas (ECF No. 59 at 14-15).8 Plaintiff wants to know whether BBC USA had 

any involvement in Florida concerning that unrelated equipment (id.). That information is 

irrelevant, however, and therefore discovery of it is unnecessary, because plaintiff’s claim does 

not arise from equipment that was neither destined for nor delivered to Cuba.9

Plaintiff submits nothing to rebut or question Petersen’s statement that BBC USA has no 

office or employees in Florida. Plaintiff nevertheless wants to take discovery from BBC USA 

concerning “BBC USA’s other relevant contacts with Florida” (ECF No. 59 at 15). This is a 

7 That Seaport Hub Agencies, Inc. is unaffiliated with the BBC Defendants is clear from its 

website, https://www.seaportagencies.com/seaport-agencies (last visited Oct. 11, 2020).

8

 BBC USA is located in Bellaire, TX (in the Houston area), about 97 miles from Port Arthur 

(ECF No. 49-1 [Petersen Decl.], ¶ 4). 

9

 In a footnote, Plaintiff states that “BBC Singapore appears to have attached only the first two 

pages of the [U.S. Customs] Clearance Statement” that refers to the part of the BBC 

Moonstone’s cargo that was bound for Texas (ECF No. 59 at 15 n.14). The page to which 

Plaintiff refers is “Page 2 of 2” of the U.S. Customs form, which merely contains printed 

instructions and space for any information that doesn’t fit on Page 1 of 2. We submit that page – 

which contains no additional information – via the supplementary declaration of Mr. 

Schoennmann, attached as “Exhibit B.” 

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/12/2020 Page 11 of 16
- 11 - 

55003053;1 

classic “fishing expedition.” See Wolf v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 683 Fed. Appx. 786, 792 (11th 

Cir. 2017) (jurisdictional discovery “should not serve as fishing expeditions, and, as such, are 

appropriate only when a party demonstrates that it can supplement its jurisdictional allegations 

through discovery”) (internal quotations and citation omitted).10

BBC Singapore. Plaintiff begins its section on BBC Singapore by asserting that “BBC 

Singapore’s declaration largely supports the Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction” (ECF No. 

59 at 16) (italics in original), and proceeds to explain why BBC Singapore’s contacts with 

Florida – as described in the declaration and shipping documents that BBC Singapore submitted 

– supposedly are sufficient to establish long-arm jurisdiction over it. If that is what Plaintiff 

believes, then it does not need any jurisdictional discovery from BBC Singapore. 

Plaintiff nevertheless asks for discovery for two reasons, neither of which is valid. First, 

plaintiff claims that the Schoennmann declaration and the shipping documents are inconsistent as 

to which entity – BBC Carriers or BBC Singapore – issued the master bills of lading (ECF No. 

59 at 17). That is incorrect. BBC Singapore’s submissions are consistent and clear that BBC 

Singapore issued the master bills of lading as agent for and in the name of BBC Carriers. The 

bills of lading are on the printed form of BBC Carriers, the VOCC (ECF No. 50-3 and 50-4); its 

website is printed on them (www.bbc-chartering.com); and the bill of lading terms are available 

on that website (under “BL Terms”). Schoennmann stated very clearly in his declaration that 

BBC Singapore customarily acts, and acted in this case, as the agent for BBC Carriers (ECF No. 

10 See also Schuchardt v. President of the United States, 839 F.3d 336, 353 (3d Cir. 2018) 

(“[j]urisdictional discovery is not a license for the parties to engage in a fishing expedition) 

(internal quotations and citation omitted); Atlantis Hydroponics, Inc. v. International Growers 

Supply, Inc., 915 F. Supp. 2d 1365, 1380 (N.D. Ga. 2013) (“The purpose of jurisdictional 

discovery is to ascertain the truth of the allegations or facts underlying the assertion of personal 

jurisdiction. It is not a vehicle for a fishing expedition in hopes that discovery will sustain the 

exercise of personal jurisdiction.”) (internal quotations and citation omitted). 

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/12/2020 Page 12 of 16
- 12 - 

55003053;1 

50-1, ¶¶ 6-8, 11, 13, 20). And the BBC Defendants’ motion also states that BBC Singapore 

issued the master bills of lading “in its role as agent” (ECF No. 48 at 6). Plaintiff is trying to 

manufacture a factual question where none exists. 

Second, plaintiff wants to discover why BBC Singapore considered and described the 

ships’ stops in Miami as “incidental” (ECF No. 59 at 17). But, Schoennmann explained in his 

declaration why the ships stopped in the port of Miami: “because the cargo, which consisted in 

part of U.S.-manufactured goods, needed to clear U.S. customs in the U.S.,” as required by the 

cargo owners, not by BBC Singapore or the carrier, BBC Carriers (ECF No. 50-1, ¶ 20). The 

word “incidental” does not appear in Schoennmann’s declaration; it appears (twice) in the BBC 

Defendants’ motion and brief (ECF No. 48 at 6, 19). The facts that the ships stopped in Miami 

and why they did so are not in dispute; Plaintiff is merely raising legal arguments concerning 

those facts. 

Having no valid specific reason to seek discovery from BBC Singapore, Plaintiff resorts, 

as it does with respect to BBC USA, to making a generalized and broad request for discovery of 

any and all contacts between BBC Singapore and Florida (ECF No. 59 at 17-18). That is 

unnecessary because, as Plaintiff itself led off its section on BBC Singapore, BBC Singapore has 

submitted proof that it acted as agent for the two voyages in question. The dispute is not about 

the jurisdictional facts, therefore; rather, it is a legal dispute over whether, under the operative 

facts already disclosed by BBC Singapore, the Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over 

BBC Singapore. 

D. Plaintiff Does Not Specify What Discovery It Would Take 

Not only does Plaintiff fail to identify valid and specific areas of factual dispute relevant 

to whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over either BBC Defendant (as discussed above), 

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/12/2020 Page 13 of 16
- 13 - 

55003053;1 

but in addition, plaintiff does not specify the discovery methods it would pursue or any limits on 

how it would pursue them (other than proposing a 60-day discovery period). 

On the contrary, plaintiff seemingly wishes to reserve for itself the ability to pursue any 

and all discovery methods, including “remote depositions” and “third-party discovery,” without 

any limits on methods or specific topics (ECF No. 59 at 1). Plaintiff’s failure to state what 

specific documents it would seek, what interrogatories it would propound, what person(s) – 

parties or non-parties – it would seek to remotely depose, and on what topics, is itself a reason to 

deny its request for discovery. Hinkle v. Cirrus Design Corp., 775 Fed. Appx. 545, 550 (11th 

Cir. 2019) (affirming denial of discovery when plaintiffs “did not explain in their filings in the 

district court, or in this court, what facts or even what type of facts they wish to discover if given 

the opportunity”); Jessop v. Penn Nat’l Gaming, Inc., No. 6:18-cv-1741-Orl-37DCI, 2019 WL 

960031, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 25, 2019) (denying motion for jurisdictional discovery where 

“Plaintiff does not describe the type (e.g., interrogatories, requests for production, depositions) or 

the scope of discovery it believes is necessary under the circumstances of this case”). 

Even if the Court concluded that there is a valid reason for Plaintiff to take some limited 

jurisdictional discovery as to the BBC Defendants – which they deny (as discussed above) – the 

Court should not grant Plaintiff a “blank check” to do so. Especially when, as in this case, 

defendants have raised a serious challenge to the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction (see page 2, 

notes 1 and 2 above), the Court should not allow Plaintiff to burden the BBC Defendants with 

broad discovery requests; any such discovery should be strictly limited to specific and 

legitimately disputed facts bearing on the motion, and by the discovery method that is the least 

intrusive and burdensome. See Chudasma, 123 F.3d at 1368 (because discovery imposes heavy 

burdens on the parties and the court, which “does nothing but waste the resources of the 

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/12/2020 Page 14 of 16
- 14 - 

55003053;1 

litigants” when the claim is subject to dismissal, “the district court should rule on the [dismissal] 

motion before entering discovery orders, if possible”). 

E. Plaintiff’s Separate Motion to Stay Further 

Briefing on the Personal Jurisdiction Motions 

In its second and related motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to stay further briefing on 

defendants’ three separate personal jurisdiction motions “pending the Court’s disposition of 

American Sugar’s motion for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery” (ECF No. 60 at 1). 

The BBC Defendants’ position concerning that motion is as stated in defendants’ joint 

motion, filed today, to stay the jurisdictional motions in their entirety – not just the briefing, but 

also plaintiff’s motion to take jurisdictional discovery – until the Court has decided defendants’ 

joint motion to dismiss, in which defendants assert (among other dismissal grounds) that the 

Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. 

Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny Plaintiff’s motion to conduct discovery 

concerning personal jurisdiction as to either BBC Defendant. 

With regard to Plaintiff’s related motion to stay the briefing schedule on all defendants’ 

personal jurisdiction motions, the Court should stay those motions entirely, including 

consideration of whether jurisdictional discovery is appropriate in this case, until the Court has 

decided defendants’ joint motion to dismiss (ECF No. 54). Alternatively, the Court should deny 

Plaintiff’s motion to stay and require it to respond to the personal jurisdiction motions without 

taking any discovery before it files such oppositions.11

11 If, once the personal jurisdiction motions are fully briefed, the Court should determine that it 

needs additional facts to decide them, it could direct at that time the specific facts to be 

discovered, from what persons, and by what methods. 

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/12/2020 Page 15 of 16
- 15 - 

55003053;1 

Dated: October 12, 2020 

AKERMAN LLP 

Three Brickell City Centre 

98 Southeast Seventh Street, Suite 1100 

Miami, Florida 33131 

Telephone: (305) 374-5600 

Facsimile: (305) 349-4654 

By: /s/ Naim S. Surgeon

Pedro A. Freyre 

Florida Bar No.: 192140 

Email: pedro.freyre@akerman.com 

Naim S. Surgeon 

Florida Bar No.: 101682 

Email: naim.surgeon@akerman.com 

Attorneys for Defendants 

BBC Chartering USA, LLC and 

BBC Chartering Singapore Pte Ltd. 

Martin Domb (app. pro hac vice pending)

martin.domb@akerman.com 

AKERMAN LLP 

520 Madison Avenue, 20th Floor 

New York, NY 10022

Tel. (212) 880-3800 

Fax (212) 880-8965 

Case 1:20-cv-22471-DPG Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/12/2020 Page 16 of 16