Mylonakis v. The M/T Georgios M. (909 F. Supp. 2d 691, 2012)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SIM LAKE, District Judge.

Plaintiff brings this action against defendants, M/T Georgios M., her engines, tackle, etc., in rem (“the Vessel”); STYGA Compañía Naviera S.A. (“STYGA”), Helford Marine Inc. (“Helford”), Kyriakos Mamidakis, Emmanuel A. Mamidakis, Nikolaos A. Mamidakis, Alexandras N. Mamidakis (collectively, “the Mamidakis Defendants”), and Alexandras G. Prokopakis, for violation of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (“APPS”), 33 U.S.C. § 1910, general maritime claims for unseaworthiness, negligence, intentional misrepresentation, breach of the duty to defend, maintenance and cure, double wages under 46 U.S.C. § 10313, and pendent state law claims for malicious prosecution, breach of fiduciary duty, and gross negligence. Plaintiff seeks statutory civil penalties and attorney’s fees for his APPS claims and seeks compensatory and exemplary damages for his other claims. Pending before the court are plaintiffs Emergency Motion to Sanction Certain Defendants for Perjured Deposition Testimony (Docket Entry No. 79); Defendant Nikolaos A. Mamidakis’ Amended Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Improper Venue (Docket Entry No. 88); STYGA Compañía Naviera S.A. and Helford Marine Ine.’s Amended Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Improper Venue (Docket Entry No. 89); Defendant Kyriakos Mamidakis’ Amended Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Improper Venue (Docket Entry No. 90); Alexandras G. Prokopakis’s Amended Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Improper Venue (Docket Entry No. 91); Defendant Emmanouil A. Mamidakis’ Amended Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Improper Venue (Docket Entry No. 92); and Defendant Alexandras N. Mamidakis’ Amended Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Improper Venue (Docket Entry No. 93); Defendants’ Amended Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs Claims Under 33 U.S.C. § 1910 a/k/a Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (Docket Entry No. 94); Defendants’ Amended Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs Claims for Maintenance & Cure and Penalty Wages Under 46 U.S.C. § 10313 (Docket Entry No. 95); Defendants’ Amended Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs Claim of Malicious Prosecution Under Texas Law (Docket Entry No. 96); Defendants’ Amended Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs Claim for Breach of the Duty to Defend (Docket Entry No. 97); and Defendants’ Objections to Evidence Offered by Plaintiff (Docket Entry No. 115).

For the reasons explained below, Plaintiffs Emergency Motion to Sanction Certain Defendants for Perjured Deposition Testimony (Docket Entry No. 79) will be denied as to the individuals defendants and granted in part and denied in part as to the corporate defendants; STYGA and Helford’s Amended Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Improper Venue (Docket Entry No. 89) will be granted in part and denied in part; and the Mamidakis Defendants’ Amended Motions to Dismiss will be granted for lack of personal jurisdiction and moot as to improper venue (Docket Entry Nos. 88, 90-93). Defendants’ Amended Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs Claims Under 33 U.S.C. § 1910 a/k/a Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (Docket Entry No. 94) will be granted; Defendants’ Amended Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs Claims for Maintenance & Cure and Penalty Wages Under 46 U.S.C. § 10313 (Docket Entry No. 95) will be denied; Defendants’ Amended Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs Claim of Malicious Prosecution Under Texas Law (Docket Entry No. 96) will be granted; Defendants’ Amended Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs Claim for Breach of the Duty to Defend (Docket Entry No. 97) will be granted; and Defendants’ Objections to Evidence Offered by Plaintiff (Docket Entry No. 115) will be declared moot.

I. Factual Background

Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Greece. On or about November 24, 2008, in Athens, Greece, plaintiff entered into a Seaman’s Contract of Employment with STYGA. From November 29, 2008, to March 1, 2009, plaintiff served as Chief Engineer onboard the M/T GEORGIOS M., a merchant vessel registered in Malta. At all times material to this action the M/T GEORGIOS M. was owned by Helford, a business entity organized under the laws of Liberia that did not have a regular place of business in Texas. At all times material to this action STYGA was a business entity organized under the laws of Panama that managed and operated the M/T GEORGIOS M. for Helford and did not have a regular place of business in Texas. Plaintiff alleges that the “MAMI-DAKIS DEFENDANTS were the beneficial owners and persons who controlled HELFORD, STYGA, and the M/T GEORGIOS M.” Defendants acknowledge that

[defendant Kyriakos Mamidakis, a resident citizen of Greece, was the President and a member of the Board of Directors of both STYGA and Helford. (See Decl. of Kyriakos Mamidakis, attached hereto as Ex. 3, at ¶¶ 2 and 11.) Defendant Emmanouil A. Mamidakis, a resident citizen of Greece, was the Treasurer and a member of the Board of STYGA and Helford. (See Decl. of Emmanouil A. Mamidakis, attached hereto as Ex. 4, at ¶¶ 2 and 12.) Defendant Nikolaos A. Mamidakis, a resident citizen of Greece was the Vice President of STYGA and a member of the board of directors of STYGA. (See Decl. of Nikolaos A. Mamidakis, attached hereto as Ex. 5, at ¶¶ 2 and 11.) Defendant Alexandras N. Mamidakis, a resident citizen of Greece, was a member of the board of directors of STYGA. (See Decl. of Alexandras N. Mamidakis, attached hereto as Ex. 6, at ¶¶ 2 and 11.) Defendant Alexandras G. Prokopakis, a resident of Greece and a citizen of the United States, was the Secretary of Helford and a member of the board of directors of both STYGA and Helford. (See Decl. of Alexandras G. Prokopakis, attached hereto as Ex. 7, at ¶¶ 2 and 7.)

On or about November 29, 2008, plaintiff arrived at Puerto Limón, Costa Rica, to board the M/T GEORGIOS M. and replace Argyrios Argyropoulos (“Argyropoulos”) as Chief Engineer.

On February 19, 2009, at the port of Texas City, Texas, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) initiated an investigation into alleged unlawful discharges of oily waste from the M/T GEORGIOS M. This investigation caused the United States to file criminal charges against STYGA as manager and plaintiff as Chief Engineer of the M/T GEORGIOS M. The criminal charges arose from discovery of a bypass pipe also known as a “magic pipe” onboard the vessel used to discharge overboard engine room oily waste in violation of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, known as MARPOL, and its United States codification known as the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1901 et seq.

On February 25, 2009, STYGA and Helford entered into an Agreement on Security with the USCG pursuant to which the United States agreed to release the M/T GEORGIOS M. in exchange for STYGA and Helford’s agreement to post a surety bond and to provide for the care, salaries, lodging, per diem and needed transportation for crew members from the M/T GEORGIOS M. — including plaintiff — who the USCG required to stay in the Southern District of Texas until the criminal investigation concluded.

On August 20, 2009, a federal grand jury indicted plaintiff on two counts of violating the APPS, 33 U.S.C. § 1908(a), for failing “to maintain an Oil Record Book for the M/T Georgios M in which all disposals of oil residue, overboard discharges, and disposals of oily bilge waste water were required to be fully recorded.” The Indictment also charged the plaintiff with two counts of False Statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2), and one count of Obstruction in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1519.

On September 2, 2009, STYGA’s Board of Directors resolved “[t]hat STYGA ... is authorized to waive its right to indictment with regards to the investigation by the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Texas.” An Information dated October 8, 2009, charged STYGA with violating the APPS by failing “to maintain an Oil Record Book for the M/T Georgios M in which all disposals of oil residue, overboard discharges, and disposals of bilge water were required to be fully recorded.” The Information alleged that STYGA

maintained an Oil Record Book that: (1) falsely and affirmatively claimed discharges of bilge waste had been made through the use of an Oil Water Separator and that sludges had been incinerated; (2) failed to disclose overboard discharges of oily sludge and bilge waste made through bypass equipment and without the use of a properly functioning Oil Water Separator and oil monitoring equipment and incinerator; (3) failed to record all tank to tank transfers, including transfers from the bilge tank into the drain oil tank; and (4) that created the overall false and misleading impression that the vessel was being operated properly and was fully maintaining an accurate Oil Record Book:

COUNT ON OR ABOUT IN THE PORT OF

1 _December 19, 2006 Houston. Texas_

2 _January 15, 2009 Corpus Christi, Texas

3 _February 19, 2009 Texas City, Texas

All in violation of Title 33, United States Code, Section 1908(a), Title 18, United States Code, Section 2, and Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 151.25.

On October 21, 2009, STYGA entered a written plea agreement with the United States pursuant to which STYGA pleaded guilty to the October 8, 2009, Information and agreed to (1) pay a criminal fine in the amount of $1,000,000.00; (2) pay an organizational community service payment in the amount of $250,000.00; (3) serve a thirty-six-(36)-month term of probation that in-eludes as a condition of probation the implementation of an Environmental Compliance Plan (ECP); and (4) cooperate in the government’s ongoing investigation and prosecution of individual crew members from the M/T GEORGIOS M., including the plaintiff in this action. Attached to STYGA’s Plea Agreement is a Joint Factual Statement dated October 6, 2009, stipulating “that this Joint Factual Statement is a true and accurate statement of the Defendant’s criminal conduct and that it provides a sufficient basis for the Defendant’s plea of guilty to Counts One, Two, and Three of the Information in this case.” The Joint Factual Statement states, inter alia:

7. From at least December 19, 2006, through February 19, 2009, senior engineering officers and other crew members aboard the Georgios M, including three Chief Engineers, acting on behalf of and for the intended benefit of Styga, installed and used a bypass pipe, also referred to as a “magic pipe” or a “magic hose,” consisting of a large section of metal pipe, secreted beneath the engine room deck plates of the ship, and connected to a flexible rubber hose of certain length with flanges at either end to bypass pollution prevention equipment on board the Georgios M. In order for sludges to be discharged through the “magic hose,” the ship’s engineers removed internal components from a check valve in the sludge discharge system which allowed for fluid to flow in both directions, in contradiction of the ship’s classification society approved piping system drawings.

8. From at least December 19/2006, through February 19, 2009, the senior engineers on board the Georgios M, including three Chief Engineers, often directed junior engineering crewmembers to connect the so-called “magic pipe” and deliberately discharged sludges and oily bilge wastes directly into the sea.

9. From at least December 19, 2006, through February 19, 2009, the senior engineers on board the Georgios M knowingly failed to make required entries in the vessel’s ORB, including the fact that sludge and oily wastes were discharged through the bypass pipe directly into the ocean, circumventing the pollution prevention equipment required by MARPOL. Senior engineers also made false entries in the ORB indicating that oily wastes were processed using the vessel’s pollution prevention equipment when in fact, as the engineering officers and engine room crew members well knew at the time, the equipment was not used.

On April 28, 2010, at the conclusion of a trial, the plaintiff was acquitted of all the charges made against him in the indictment dated August 20, 2009.

Plaintiff initiated this action on August 24, 2010, by filing his Original Verified Complaint (Docket Entry No. 1).

II. Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

Plaintiff alleges that “[a]t all times material hereto, all acts and omissions complained of occurred either within the State of Texas or had their impact within the State of Texas in this Federal judicial district.” Defendants argue that all of plaintiffs claims should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction because

STYGA, Helford, and the Mamidakis defendants lack contacts with Texas or the United States to support either specific or general jurisdiction. To the extent that Mylonakis’ claims arise out of the Vessel’s calls to port in the United States, such calls were outside the control of the Defendants and were isolated and sporadic in nature.

Plaintiff argues that defendants’ contacts with Texas are sufficient to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction.

A. Standard of Review

When .a foreign defendant moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), “the plaintiff ‘bears the burden of establishing the district court’s jurisdiction over the defendant.’ ” Quick Technologies, Inc. v. Sage Group PLC, 313 F.3d 338, 343 (5th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 814, 124 S.Ct. 66, 157 L.Ed.2d 29 (2003) (quoting Mink v. AAAA Development LLC, 190 F.3d 333, 335 (5th Cir.1999)). “When the district court rules on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction ‘without an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff may bear his burden by presenting a prima facie case that personal jurisdiction is proper.’ ” Id. (quoting Wilson v. Belin, 20 F.3d 644, 648 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 930, 115 S.Ct. 322, 130 L.Ed.2d 282 (1994)). “In making its determination, the district court may consider the contents of the record before the court at the time of the motion, including ‘affidavits, interrogatories, depositions, oral testimony, or any combination of the recognized methods of discovery.’ ” Id. at 344 (quoting Thompson v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 755 F.2d 1162, 1165 (5th Cir.1985)). The court must accept as true the uncontroverted allegations in the plaintiffs complaint and must resolve in favor of the plaintiff any factual conflicts. “Absent any dispute as to the relevant facts, the issue of whether personal jurisdiction may be exercised over a nonresident defendant is a question of law to be determined ... by th[e C]ourt.” Ruston Gas Turbines, Inc. v. Donaldson Co., Inc., 9 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir.1993). However, the court is not obligated to credit conclusory allegations, even if uncontroverted. Panda Brandywine Corp. v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 253 F.3d 865, 869 (5th Cir.2001).

B. Applicable Law

Exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant comports with federal due process guarantees when the nonresident defendant has established minimum contacts with the forum state, and the exercise of jurisdiction “does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, Office of Unemployment Compensation and Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 61 S.Ct. 339, 343, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940)). Once a plaintiff satisfies these two requirements, a presumption arises that jurisdiction is reasonable, and the burden of proof and persuasion shifts to the defendant opposing jurisdiction to present “a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2185, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). For claims arising under state law, federal courts “may assert personal jurisdiction if: (1) the state’s long-arm statute applies, as interpreted by the state’s courts; and (2) if due process is satisfied under the [Fourteenth [A]mendment to the United States Constitution.” Johnston v. Multidata Systems International Corp., 523 F.3d 602, 609 (5th Cir. 2008). For claims arising under federal law courts may assert personal jurisdiction over defendants who lack sufficient contacts to satisfy the due process concerns of any particular state’s long-arm statute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) when the defendant has sufficient contacts with the nation as a whole to justify the imposition of United States’ law. See World Tanker Carriers Corp. v. M/V Ya Mawlaya, 99 F.3d 717, 720 (5th Cir.1996).

Texas courts may assert personal jurisdiction “over a nonresident if (1) the Texas long-arm statute authorizes the exercise of jurisdiction, and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction is consistent with federal and state constitutional due process guarantees.” Moki Mac River Expeditions v. Drugg, 221 S.W.3d 569, 574 (Tex.2007) (citing Schlobohm v. Schapiro, 784 S.W.2d 355, 356 (Tex.1990)). The Texas long-arm statute authorizes service of process on nonresidents “[i]n an action arising from a nonresident’s business in this state.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code § 17.043.

In addition to other acts that may constitute doing business, a nonresident does business in this state if the nonresident:

(1) contracts by mail or otherwise with a Texas resident and either party is to perform the contract in whole or in part in this state; [or]

(2) commits a tort in whole or in part in this state; or

(3) recruits Texas residents, directly or through an intermediary located in this state, for employment inside or outside this state.

Id. at § 17.042. The Texas Supreme Court has stated that “the long-arm statute’s broad doing-business language allows the statute to ‘reach as far as the federal constitutional requirements of due process will allow.’ ” Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 575 (quoting Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance, Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C., 815 S.W.2d 223, 226 (Tex.1991)). See also Schlobohm, 784 S.W.2d at 357 (holding that the limits of the Texas long-arm statute are coextensive with the limits of constitutional due process guarantees).

C. Minimum Contacts Analysis

“There are two types of ‘minimum contacts:’ those that give rise to specific personal jurisdiction and those that give rise to general personal jurisdiction.” Lewis v. Fresne, 252 F.3d 352, 358 (5th Cir.2001). Defendants argue that this action should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction because plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of presenting prima facie evidence that they purposefully established “minimum contacts” with Texas that are sufficient to give rise to either “specific” or “general” jurisdiction. Plaintiff responds that the court has both specific and general jurisdiction over both the corporate and the individual defendants.

1. General Jurisdiction

General jurisdiction “exists when a non-resident defendant’s contacts with the forum state are substantial, continuous, and systematic.” Johnston, 523 F.3d at 609 (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 1872-74, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984)). “The ‘continuous and systematic contacts test is a difficult one to meet, requiring extensive contacts between a defendant and a forum.’ ” Id. (quoting Submersible Systems, Inc. v. Perforadora Central, S.A. de C.V., 249 F.3d 413, 419 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1055, 122 S.Ct. 646, 151 L.Ed.2d 564 (2001)). “[E]ven repeated contacts with forum residents by a foreign defendant may not constitute the requisite substantial, continuous, and systematic contacts required for a finding of general jurisdiction ...” Id. (quoting Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467, 471 (5th Cir.2002)). Moreover, a defendant may “not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of ‘random,’ ‘fortuitous,’ or ‘attenuated’ contacts, ... or of the ‘unilateral activity of another party or third person.’ ” Burger King, 105 S.Ct. at 2183 (citations omitted). In other words, the only contacts that matter for personal jurisdiction must “result from actions by the defendant himself that create a ‘substantial connection’ with the forum state.” Id. at 2184.

The seminal general jurisdiction case is Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437, 72 S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed. 485 (1952), in which the Supreme Court first articulated the idea that a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation based on general business operations within the forum state. The Supreme Court upheld the district court’s exercise of general personal jurisdiction in Ohio over a Philippine corporation whose president and general manager relocated to Ohio during the Japanese occupation of the Philippine Islands. While in Ohio, the president maintained a corporate office where he kept the records of the corporation, conducted director’s meetings, and made all key business decisions. The corporation also distributed salary checks drawn on two Ohio bank accounts and engaged an Ohio bank to act as a transfer agent. In light of these activities the Court held that Ohio could exercise jurisdiction over the corporation because the president had “carried on in Ohio a continuous and systematic supervision of the necessarily limited wartime activities of the company.” Id. at 419.

By contrast, in Helicópteros the Supreme Court held that the defendant’s general business contacts with Texas were insufficient to support an exercise of general jurisdiction despite the fact that the defendant had purchased equipment from a company in the forum state. 104 S.Ct. at 1873-74. Over a six-year period the defendant purchased helicopters (approximately 80% of its fleet), spare parts, and accessories for more than $4 million from a Texas company; sent its prospective pilots to Texas for training; sent management and maintenance personnel to Texas for technical consultations; and received a check for over $5 million that was drawn upon a Texas bank. Nevertheless, the Court held that none of the contacts were substantial enough standing alone or taken together to support the assertion of general jurisdiction.

The Court explained that the mere purchase of goods from a state, even at regular intervals and in substantial amounts, was not enough to warrant the assertion of general jurisdiction over a non-resident on a cause of action unrelated to those purchases. Nor was the Court persuaded that the fact that the defendant sent personnel to Texas for training in connection with the purchases enhanced the nature of the contacts. Instead, the Court concluded that this was merely one aspect of the package of goods and services that the defendant had purchased. Finally, the Court concluded that the receipt of a check drawn from a Texas bank was of no consequence because the bank from which payment was made was caused by the fortuitous “unilateral activity” of a third party. Id. The Fifth Circuit has consistently imposed the high standard set by the Supreme Court in Helicopteros when ruling on general jurisdiction issues. See, e.g., Central Freight Lines Inc. v. APA Transport Corp., 322 F.3d 376, 381 (5th Cir.2003) (finding no general jurisdiction even though the defendant routinely arranged and received shipments to and from Texas and regularly sent sales people to Texas to develop business, negotiate contracts, and service national accounts). In Access Telecom, Inc. v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 197 F.3d 694, 717 (5th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 917, 121 S.Ct. 275, 148 L.Ed.2d 200 and 531 U.S. 917, 121 S.Ct. 292, 148 L.Ed.2d 200 (2000), the Fifth Circuit emphasized that in order to confer general jurisdiction a defendant must have a business presence in Texas.

Application of the standards shows that none of the defendants in this action have sufficient systematic and continuous contacts with Texas to establish general jurisdiction. See also Johnston, 523 F.3d at 611 (reaffirming that a defendant must have a “business presence in Texas” before general jurisdiction will attach). As to the corporate defendants, plaintiff acknowledges that since the claims alleged against STYGA and Helford arise from their activity in this forum, “it is not necessary for Plaintiff to invoke general jurisdiction in the circumstances of this case.” As to the individual defendants, plaintiff asserts that “[t]he court has both specific jurisdiction and, arguably, general jurisdiction over the individual [defendants.” However, plaintiff has not provided the court any basis for concluding that the individual defendants are subject to general jurisdiction. Instead, plaintiff bases his assertion of personal jurisdiction over the individual defendants on their alleged alter ego relationship to the corporate defendants, arguing that “[t]he acts and omission of the Corporate Defendants in the forum are, for this reason, the acts and omissions of the Individual Defendants.” Because plaintiffs assertion of personal jurisdiction over the individual defendants is based on their alter ego relationship to the corporate defendants, because plaintiff has acknowledged that “it is not necessary for Plaintiff to invoke general jurisdiction [against the corporate defendants] in the circumstances of this case,” and because plaintiff has not offered any alternative basis for the assertion of general jurisdiction over the individual defendants, for the same reasons that the court has concluded that there is no basis for the exercise of general jurisdiction over the corporate defendants, the court concludes that there is no basis for the exercise of general jurisdiction over the individual defendants.

2. Specific Jurisdiction

A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if the lawsuit arises from or relates to the defendant’s contact with the forum state. See ICEE Distributors, Inc. v. J & J Snack Foods Corp., 325 F.3d 586, 591 (5th Cir.2003). Specific jurisdiction exists where a defendant “purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” Burger King, 105 S.Ct. at 2183 (quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1239-40, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958)). There are three parts to a purposeful availment inquiry. First, only the defendant’s contacts with the forum are relevant, not the unilateral activity of another party or a third person. Second, the contacts relied upon must be purposeful rather than random, fortuitous, or attenuated. Finally, the defendant must seek some benefit, advantage, or profit by availing itself of the jurisdiction. A defendant may purposefully avoid a particular forum by structuring its transactions in such a way as to neither profit from the forum’s laws nor subject itself to jurisdiction there. Moki Mac, 221 S.W.3d at 575 (citing Burger King, 105 S.Ct. at 2181-85). Since specific jurisdiction is claim specific, “[a] plaintiff bringing multiple claims that arise out of different forum contacts of the defendant must establish specific jurisdiction for each claim.” See Seiferth v. Helicopteros Atuneros, Inc., 472 F.3d 266, 274 (5th Cir.2006).

(a) The Corporate Defendants Are Subject to Specific Jurisdiction on All But One of Plaintiffs Claims

Citing Asarco, Inc. v. Glenara, Ltd., 912 F.2d 784 (5th Cir.1990), STYGA and Helford argue that “[precedent [involving [Chartered [vjessels [flavors [dismissal” because

[wjhen the Vessel arrived at the Port of Texas City on February 1, 2009, the Vessel was chartered to ST Shipping under a long-term time charter party agreement ... Under this charter party, ST Shipping directed the ports of call for the vessel and Helford [and STYGA] had no control over whether the Vessel would call at U.S. ports.

STYGA and Helford argue that they are not subject to specific jurisdiction because, as manager and owner, respectively, of the time-chartered vessel, they were not involved in decisions affecting the vessel’s ports of call and did not direct the vessel to any specific port. STYGA and Helford rely on the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Asarco, 912 F.2d at 784, for the proposition that a vessel’s manager and owner do not purposefully avail themselves of the jurisdiction of a port of call that was chosen solely by the vessel’s time-charterer.

In Asarco cargo was loaded in Australia and lost at sea long before the vessel ever reached Louisiana, where the plaintiff sued the owner and manager of the vessel. 912 F.2d at 785. The vessel had been time-chartered to a third party, who directed the vessel to carry the cargo to Louisiana. Id. The vessel’s manager was a Hong Kong corporation named Anglo-Eastern Management Services Limited (“Anglo-Eastern”). Id. Anglo-Eastern and the vessel’s owner successfully argued to the Louisiana district court that it lacked personal jurisdiction over them. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, observing the general rule that “[e]ven a single, substantial act directed toward the forum can support specific jurisdiction,” but finding that the plaintiff had failed to show that either the vessel’s owner or Anglo-Eastern had directed an act toward Louisiana. Id. at 786.

This case is distinguishable from Asarco. Here, unlike Asarco, plaintiffs claims against STYGA and Helford are not all based on acts committed outside the forum. Instead, Plaintiff alleges that the two corporate defendants were responsible for the MARPOL/APPS violations found aboard the M/T GEORGIOS M. while the vessel was physically present in Texas, and that these defendants and/or them agents committed other acts in Texas that harmed him. If the nonresident corporate defendants committed the liability-producing acts while physically present in the forum state, such conduct will support personal jurisdiction in lawsuits arising from those acts.

This principle is most frequently encountered in cases involving torts committed by nonresidents while temporarily in the State. See Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352, 47 S.Ct. 632, 71 L.Ed. 1091 (1927); Elk-hart Engineering Corp. v. Dornier Werke, 343 F.2d 861, 868 (5th Cir.1965) (“We therefor hold that Alabama may, consistent with the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, assert jurisdiction over a non-resident, non-qualifying corporation in suits on a claim of liability for tortious injury arising out of activity of the non-resident within the state, even though only a single transaction is involved, and regardless of whether the activity is considered dangerous.”).

Thus, if STYGA and Helford are responsible for the allegedly tortious actions of the vessel’s crew while in Texas, they are subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas. See Ortega v. Seaboard Marine Ltd., 400 F.Supp.2d 987, 990 (S.D.Tex.2005) (“Because Patt Manfield employed the captain and crew, it cannot escape litigation arising out of the allegedly tortious acts of those employees acting within the scope of their employment.”).

STYGA and Helford describe their activities in Texas as follows:

1. The Georgios M presented an Oil Record Book to the U.S. Coast Guard (“USCG”) that failed to contain required entries concerning the management of sludges and oily wastes in violation of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1901 et seq.

2. On February 25, 200[9], the Defendants entered into the Agreement on Security with the U.S. Coast Guard and the United States to post a surety bond and to provide for the care, salaries, lodging, per diem and needed transportation for certain crew members from the Georgios M that the USCG required to be retained in this District pending the conclusion of the Government’s criminal investigation in order to obtain the release of the Georgios M from the hold placed on it by the USCG preventing it to leave the District.

3. Following negotiations with the Department of Justice, STYGA entered into a written Plea Agreement with the United States and an attached Joint Factual Statement on October 6, 2009, which imposed certain obligations on STYGA, including the payment of the cost of the transportation to and from the Southern District of Texas and to continue to provide for the care, salaries, lodging, per diem and needed transportation of the crew members still retained pursuant to the Agreement on Security.

4. Defendants appointed an agent to perform the obligations to care for the retained crew created by the Agreement on Security and the Plea Agreement and paid for the performance of those obligations.

5. Defendants paid the fees and expenses of the Plaintiffs lead criminal defense attorney.

STYGA and Helford argue that

[o]f these activities, only the presentment of the Oil Record Book containing false information can be considered as being purposefully directed at the forum or that it constituted a purposeful availment of the benefits of the laws of the forum. All of the activities following the initial assertion [of] charges were carried out under a level of compulsion and duress, and should not be considered to reach the level of activity upon which personal jurisdiction can be predicated, at least to persons, such as the Plaintiff, who were not the object of the activities.

(1) The Corporate Defendants Are Subject to Specific Jurisdiction on Plaintiffs Claims for APPS Violations, and General Maritime Claims for Unseaworthiness, and Negligence

STYGA and Helford’s acknowledgment that while in Texas the M/T GEORGIOS M. presented an Oil Record Book to the USCG that failed to contain required entries concerning the management of sludges and oily wastes in violation of the APPS, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1901 et seq., provides a sufficient basis for the court to assert personal jurisdiction over them for plaintiffs claims that they violated the APPS. Moreover, in light of the duties that the charter party agreement imposed upon the vessel’s owner, i.e., Helford, the court concludes that STYGA and Helford’s acknowledgment that the vessel presented an improperly maintained Oil Record Book to the USCG in Texas also provides a sufficient basis for exercising personal jurisdiction over Helford and its agent, STYGA, for plaintiffs general maritime claims for unseaworthiness and negligence.

General maritime law imposes duties to avoid unseaworthiness, Mitchell v. Trawler Racer, Inc., 362 U.S. 539, 80 S.Ct. 926, 4 L.Ed.2d 941 (1960), and negligence, Leathers v. Blessing, 105 U.S. 626, 26 L.Ed. 1192 (1881), and “nonfatal injuries caused by the breach of either duty are compensable.” Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp. v. Garris, 532 U.S. 811, 121 S.Ct. 1927, 1929-30, 150 L.Ed.2d 34 (2001) (citing Mahnich v. Southern S.S. Co., 321 U.S. 96, 64 S.Ct. 455, 458-59, 88 L.Ed. 561 (1944) (unseaworthiness), and Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Dahl, 266 U.S. 449, 45 S.Ct. 157, 158, 69 L.Ed. 372 (1925) (negligence)). The elements of an unseaworthiness claim are (1) that the defendant provided a vessel or equipment that was not reasonably fit for its intended purpose, and (2) that “the unseaworthy condition played a substantial part in bringing about or actually causing the injury and that the injury was either a direct result or a reasonably probable consequence of the unseaworthiness.” Phillips v. Western Co. of North America, 953 F.2d 923, 928 (5th Cir.1992). To prevail on a claim of negligence under maritime law the plaintiff must prove (1) a duty was owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) the duty was breached, (3) the plaintiff suffered injury, and (4) a causal connection existed between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiffs injury. In re Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. LLC, 624 F.3d 201, 211 (5th Cir.2010). “Determination of the tortfeasor’s duty is a question of law and thus a function of the court ...” Id. (quoting Mississippi Department of Transportation v. Signal International LLC, 579 F.3d 478, 490 (5th Cir.2009)). “Under maritime law, a plaintiff is owed a duty of ordinary care under the circumstances.” Id. (citing Daigle v. Point Landing, Inc., 616 F.2d 825, 827 (5th Cir. 1980)). “[A] defendant’s failure to fulfill a duty of care under maritime law ‘does not breach that duty, ... unless the resultant harm is reasonably foreseeable.’ ” Id. at n. 10 (quoting Daigle, 616 F.2d at 827).

The charter party agreement between Helford and ST Shipping requires the vessel’s owner, i.e., Helford, to provide a vessel that is “in good order and condition, and in every way fit for the service,” to crew the vessel, to “exercise due diligence to maintain or restore the vessel,” and to

warrant that the vessel does, and will, fully comply with all applicable conventions, laws, regulations and ordinances of any international, national, state entity having jurisdiction including, but not limited to, the U.S. Port and Tanker Safety Act, as amended, the U.S. Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, MARPOL 1973/1978 as amended and extended ...

In light of these provisions in the charter party agreement the vessel’s presentation of an improperly maintained Oil Record Book to the USCG is an act that violated MARPOL and an act that can only be attributed to Helford and/or its agent, STYGA, because the charter party agreement required the owner, not the charterer, to crew the vessel and to maintain the vessel in compliance with MARPOL. It is undisputed that the presentation of an improperly maintained Oil Record Book to the USCG not only violated MARPOL but also occurred in Texas. It is also undisputed that the USCG’s investigation of the M/T GEORGIOS M. in Texas revealed at least one additional MARPOL violation, i.e., the installation of a “magic pipe” used to discharge untreated oily waste overboard. Plaintiffs claims for unseaworthiness and negligence are both based on allegations that STYGA and Helford failed to properly maintain the M/T GEORGIOS M. in compliance with MARPOL. The court concludes that the requirements for exercising personal jurisdiction over STY-GA and Helford on plaintiffs claims for unseaworthiness and negligence under maritime law are satisfied because the MARPOL violations on which these claims are based allegedly occurred in Texas by employees of Helford and/or STYGA who were acting within the scope of their employment and seeking to benefit, advantage, or profit Helford and/or STYGA by causing an improperly equipped vessel to enter a Texas port and present an improperly maintained Oil Record Book to the USCG.

(2) The Corporate Defendants Are Not Subject to Specific Jurisdiction on Plaintiff’s Claim for Intentional Misrepresentation

Plaintiffs claim for intentional misrepresentation is based on allegations that when he arrived in Costa Rica to join the M/T GEORGIOS M. as Chief Engineer the vessel’s officer in charge of the engine department, Argyrios Argyropoulos, acting as the corporate defendants’ agent, not only failed to disclose that the ship’s International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate and several other documents referring to the ship’s machinery space arrangements and condition contained false information, but also affirmatively misrepresented to plaintiff that none of these deficiencies and non-conformities existed. Plaintiff alleges that he relied on Argyropoulos’s representations and consented to take over as Chief Engineer, and that by virtue of his position as Chief Engineer he became entangled in the USCG investigation that began on or about February 19, 2009, in Texas City, Texas. Although plaintiff alleges that he discovered the defendants’ misrepresentations while he and the M/T GEORGIOS M. were in Texas, he has not alleged that any of the misrepresentations occurred in Texas. Instead, plaintiff alleges that

[t]he non-disclosures and other affirmative misrepresentations of the Defendants occurred onboard the M/T GEORGIOS M at sea, and were material to Plaintiffs acceptance and assumption of his duties as Chief Engineer of the M/T GEORGIOS M, as Plaintiff relied on same believing that he was assuming such a post and duties onboard a properly and lawfully operated merchant vessel.

Because plaintiffs allegations show that he did not join the M/T GEORGIOS M. and/or assume the position of Chief Engineer in Texas but, instead, in Costa Rica, the acts underlying the plaintiffs claim for intentional misrepresentation do not show any contact with the forum state of Texas. Accordingly, the court concludes that there is no basis on which to assert personal jurisdiction over either of the two corporate defendants on plaintiffs claim for intentional misrepresentation.

(3) The Corporate Defendants Are Subject to Specific Jurisdiction on Plaintiffs Claims for Breach of Duty to Defend, Maintenance and Cure, Double Wages Under 46 U.S.C. § 10313, Malicious Prosecution, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and Gross Negligence

Plaintiffs claims for breach of the duty to defend, maintenance and cure, double wages under 46 U.S.C. § 10313, malicious prosecution, breach of fiduciary duty, and gross negligence are based on acts and communications that occurred in Texas as a result of the USCG’s investigation and discovery of MARPOL/APPS violations onboard the M/T GEORGIOS M. Although STYGA and Helford argue that the acts and communications that occurred as a result of the USCG’s investigation and discovery of MARPOL/APPS violations onboard the M/T GEORGIOS M. are insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction because those acts and communications occurred under duress, STYGA and Helford have not cited any authority in support of this argument, and the court does not find it persuasive. On the contrary, the court concludes that STYGA and Helford’s acknowledgment that they entered into an Agreement on Security with the USCG and the United States that included an obligation

to provide for the care, salaries, lodging, per diem and needed transportation for certain crew members from the Georgios M that the USCG required to be retained in this District pending the conclusion of the Government’s criminal investigation in order to obtain the release of the Georgios M from the hold placed on it by the USCG preventing it to leave the District,

is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over these defendants for claims arising from" acts performed pursuant to that agreement because by entering the Agreement on Security STYGA and Helford purposely availed themselves “of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” Burger King, 105 S.Ct. at 2183. Because plaintiffs claims for breach of duty to defend, maintenance and cure, double wages under 46 U.S.C. § 10313, malicious prosecution, breach of fiduciary duty, and gross negligence all arise from acts performed pursuant to the Agreement on Security, the court concludes that the requirements for exercising personal jurisdiction over STYGA and Helford are satisfied for these claims.

Plaintiffs breach of the duty to defend claim arises from allegations that the defendants undertook various acts in Texas in an effort to pressure plaintiff into accepting responsibility for the various MARPOL/APPS violations found to exist onboard the M/T GEORGIOS M. in Texas. Plaintiffs maintenance and cure claim arises from allegations that defendants failed to provide medical care for an illness that arose while the plaintiff was in Texas. Plaintiffs claim for double wages under 46 U.S.C. § 10313 arises from allegations that STYGA and Helford failed to pay plaintiff severance pay that accrued when plaintiff was discharged from his employment whiíe he and the vessel on which he served were in a Texas port. Plaintiffs claim for malicious prosecution arises from allegations that STYGA and Helford entered into plea bargain negotiations with the United States for the purpose of settling their exposure to criminal liability for the MARPOL/APPS violations that the USCG found onboard the M/T GEORGIOS M., and that during the course of the negotiations, these defendants agreed to blame plaintiff for the violations and agreed to cooperate with the United States by providing witnesses and documents for use in the plaintiffs criminal prosecution, and that these defendants entered these agreements “even though they ... knew or would have learned upon conducting a rudimentary investigation that [pjlaintiff was never at any time involved with the MARPOL and APPS violations onboard the M/T GEORGIOS M. Plaintiffs claims for breach of fiduciary duty and gross negligence arise from allegations that STYGA. and Helford’s plea negotiations with the United States and their dealings with him while he was detained in Houston, Texas, at the request of the United States government constitutes either an intentional breach of the fiduciary duty that an employer owes to an employee and/or gross negligence. Because each of these claims arises from acts that the defendant corporations performed and/or directed to the forum state of Texas — e.g., the termination of plaintiffs employment, the detention of the plaintiff in the Southern District of Texas pursuant to the Agreement on Security that was performed in Texas, and defendants’ collaboration in plaintiffs criminal prosecution in the forum — the court concludes that STY-GA and Helford each have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum for the court to assert personal jurisdiction oyer them,

(b) The Mamidakis Defendants Are Not Subject to Specific Jurisdiction on Any of Plaintiffs Claim

Plaintiff bases his assertion of personal jurisdiction over the Mamidakis Defendants on an alter ego relationship to the corporate defendants, by alleging that

^jurisdiction over Defendants KYRIAEOS, EMMANUEL, NIEOLAOS, ALEXANDROS, and PROEOPAEIS exists by virtue of intentional acts they committed in the name of Defendants STYGA and/or HELFORD who were at all times material hereto their agents and/or instrumentalities and/or alter epos.

The Mamidakis Defendants argue that the claims asserted against them in this action are subject to dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction and that the court should not consider the forum contacts of STYGA and Helford when deciding their challenges to personal jurisdiction. In support of this argument the Mamidakis Defendants contend that the alter ego allegations in the plaintiffs complaint are conclusory and that plaintiff is unable to adduce evidence for piercing the corporate veil. In response to defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff argues that “[personal jurisdiction over the Individual Defendants may also exist under and by virtue of the Security Agreement with the U.S. government whereby their alter egos STYGA and HELFORD specifically waived personal jurisdiction.”

As a general rule, “an individual’s transaction of business within the state solely as a corporate officer does not create personal jurisdiction over that individual though the state has in personam jurisdiction over the corporation^]” Stuart v. Spademan, 772 F.2d 1185, 1197 (5th Cir. 1985) (identifying this “general rule” as the “fiduciary shield doctrine”). The general rule does not apply when a corporation is the alter ego of the individual officer, i.e., when the corporation is simply a facade for the individual officer’s interests and activities. Id. at 1198. In such cases “courts attribute to an individual the corporation’s contacts with the forum states.” Id.

Plaintiff argues that the Individual Defendants are the alter egos of STYGA and Helford, and that STYGA and Helford’s actions may therefore be attributed to the Mamidakis Defendants for purposes of personal jurisdiction. In Stuart the Fifth Circuit cited with approval the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Lakota Girl Scout Council, Inc. v. Havey Fund-Raising Management, Inc., 519 F.2d 634 (8th Cir.1975), where the court

considered the following factors in determining whether a corporation was the alter ego of its dominant shareholder: “[A] corporation’s existence is presumed to be separate, but can be disregarded if (1) the corporation is undercapitalized, (2) without separate books, (3) its finances are not kept separate from individual finances, individual obligations are paid by the corporation, (4) the corporation is used to promote fraud or illegality, (5) corporate formalities are not followed or (6) the corporation is merely a sham.” ... In Lakota, the Eighth Circuit held that the jury’s finding that the corporation was the individual’s alter ego was supported by ample evidence, including evidence that the individual was the sole shareholder and sole incorporator, that he alone made loans to and borrowed from the corporation, that he and his wife owned the building housing the company and received rental payments, and that he used a corporation-purchased automobile for both business of the corporation and incidental personal business.

Stuart, 772 F.2d at 1197 (quoting Lakota, 519 F.2d at 638). The Court observed that in Dudley v. Smith, 504 F.2d 979 (5th Cir.1974), the Fifth Circuit “found jurisdiction to exist essentially by attributing the defendant’s contacts as a corporate representative to him individually.” Stuart, 772 F.2d at 1198. The Court noted that

the alter ego test for attribution of contacts, i.e., personal jurisdiction, is less stringent than that for liability ... Accordingly, for jurisdiction to exist, there need not be both the existence of a mere shell corporation and fraud. Rather, either factor, a shell corporation or fraud is sufficient by itself to justify jurisdiction.

Id. at n. 12 (citations omitted).

Since Stuart the Fifth Circuit has identified a number of factors for courts to consider when making an alter ego determination. See United States v. Jon-T Chemicals, Inc., 768 F.2d 686, 691-92 (5th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1014, 106 S.Ct. 1194, 89 L.Ed.2d 309 (1986). While these factors, sometimes referred to as the “Jonr-T factors,” were designed for reviewing a parent-subsidiary relationship, they can be modified to determine whether a corporation is the alter ego of an individual. See Century Hotels v. United States, 952 F.2d 107, 110 & n. 5 (5th Cir.1992). Relevant here, for example, are: (1) whether the Mamidakis Defendants completely control the corporate defendants; (2) the level of financial integration between the Mamidakis Defendants and the corporate defendants; (3) whether the corporate defendants operate with grossly inadequate capital; (4) whether the Mamidakis Defendants use the corporate defendants’ property as their own personal property; (5) whether the Mamidakis Defendants use the corporate defendants to pay personal obligations; and (6) whether the Mamidakis Defendants act as if the' corporate defendants are extensions of their own personal interests. See also Bollore S.A. v. Import Warehouse, Inc., 448 F.3d 317, 325 (5th Cir.2006) (“Under Texas law, ‘[ajlter ego applies when there is such unity between corporation and individual that the separateness of the corporation has ceased and holding only the corporation liable would result in injustice.’ Castleberry v. Branscum, 721 S.W.2d 270, 277 (Tex.1986).”). The Fifth Circuit has directed lower courts making such determinations to examine the “totality of the circumstances,” Century Hotels, 952 F.2d at 110, and to bear in mind that “the alter ego test for attribution of contacts, i.e., personal jurisdiction, is less stringent than that for liability.” Stuart, 772 F.2d at 1198 n. 12.

Here, plaintiff does not provide specific facts to show that either of the corporate defendants is simply a facade for any individual defendant’s interests and activities. Plaintiff' offers evidence that Helford has not observed all corporate formalities, but this evidence is not enough to show that Helford was merely a shell corporation. Moreover, plaintiffs contention that Helford is merely a shell corporation is negated by copies of minutes from at least some of Helford’s corporate meetings attached as Exhibit 18 to the Deposition of Helford’s secretary, Alexander Prokopakis. Plaintiff has made no showing that any of the individual defendants engaged in any conduct that courts typically use to evaluate the existence of an alter ego relationship. For example, plaintiff has made no showing that any individual Mamidakis defendant was the sole shareholder and sole incorporator of STYGA or Helford, that any Mamidakis defendant made loans to and borrowed from STYGA or Helford, that any Mamidakis defendant owned real estate leased to STYGA or Helford and received rental payments from STYGA or Helford, or that any Mamidakis defendant used corporation-purchased resources for both business of the corporation and personal purposes. See Stuart, 772 F.2d at 1197. Absent such evidence, the court concludes that the fiduciary shield doctrine applies, and that neither STYGA nor Helford’s contacts with the forum can be imputed to any of the Mamidakis defendants to create personal jurisdiction over them.

D. Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction Over Corporate Defendants is Fair and Reasonable

Because the individual defendants all lack minimum contacts with Texas, this court need not determine whether the exercise of jurisdiction over them would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. See Felch v. Transportes Lar-Mex SA DE CV, 92 F.3d 320, 329 n. 20 (5th Cir.1996) (“As Felch failed to establish sufficient ‘minimum contacts’ with Texas, we need not address whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction in this case would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”). Since the court has concluded that the two corporate defendants, STYGA and Helford, have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum for the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over them for claims arising from- those contacts, the burden shifts to them to show that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over them would not be fair and reasonable. See Seiferth, 472 F.3d at 271. Analysis of this issue is based on five factors:

(1) the burden on the nonresident defendant; (2) the interests of the forum state; (3) the plaintiffs interest in obtaining relief; (4) the interstate judicial system’s interest in the most efficient resolution of controversies; and (5) the shared interests of the several states in furthering fundamental social policies.

Id. at 276 (quoting Nuovo Pignone, SpA v. STORMAN ASIA M/V, 310 F.3d 374, 382 (5th Cir.2002)).

1. The Burden on Nonresident Defendants is Small

Corporate defendants contend that they will be burdened in bringing their witnesses and documents from Liberia and Panama, respectively, and because many material documents are in the Greek language. Defendants’, contention that they will be burdened by having to bring witnesses and documents from Liberia and Panama is not persuasive because neither of these defendants maintain an actual presence or conduct business from these seats, of their incorporation. Defendants’ contention that they will be burdened by having to translate documents from Greek to English is similarly unpersuasive because documents relating to the operation and management of the M/T GEORGIOS M. are in English, as are the records of the related cases in this court. Moreover, the court has already considered both of these arguments and ruled against the defendants by denying their motion to dismiss on forum non-conveniens.

2. The Interest of the Forum State is Significant

The corporate defendants contend that there is no forum interest in adjudicating this dispute because it is a dispute between foreigners that does not involve residents of the forum and concerns events that likely occurred in international waters. This contention is not persuasive because plaintiffs claims arise from events that occurred in the Southern District of Texas, and because two of plaintiffs claims arise under federal statutes, the APPS, 38 U.S.C. §§ 1901 et seq., and the Penalty Wage Statute, 46 U.S.C. § 1Ó313. Accordingly, the court concludes that the forum has a significant interest in adjudicating the plaintiffs claims.

3. The Plaintiff’s Interest in Obtaining Relief is Significant

The corporate defendants contend that plaintiffs interest in obtaining relief is addressed and governed by the plaintiffs contract of employment, which provides for conflicts arising thereunder to be adjudicated in Greece. As the court has already stated with respect to the defendants’ motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens,

the forum selection clause in plaintiffs employment contract covers disputes between plaintiff and his employer ... [“jpertaining to the performance of the present contract!.”] This clause does not govern the plaintiffs claims in this action, which arose after the contract had been terminated and which deal with federal statutory and Texas law claims, not the parties’ performance under the employment contract.

Accordingly, the court concludes that plaintiffs interest in obtaining relief on the claims asserted is significant and that the corporate defendants have failed to show otherwise:

4. The Interstate Judicial System’s Interest in the Most Efficient Resolution of Controversies Favors Exercise of Jurisdiction Over the Corporate Defendants

The claims alleged in this action are related to cases that were recently before this court involving the same parties, the same events, the same evidentiary materials, the same common nucleus of operative facts, and the same laws. Accordingly, the court concludes that the interstate judicial system’s interest in the most efficient resolution of controversies favors exercise of personal jurisdiction over the corporate defendants in this forum.

5. The Shared Interests of the Several States in Furthering Fundamental Social Policies Favors Exercise of Jurisdiction Over the Corporate Defendants

The two corporate defendants contend that “[n]o fundamental substantive social policy of the several states or of the United States would be furthered by the retention of this case in the United States.” This contention is not persuasive because plaintiffs claims are based on allegations that defendants deliberately caused their ship to enter this forum in a state that violated the laws of this forum and that, prompted by their subsequent prosecution, the defendants sought to impose liability on the plaintiff for their violations of this forum’s laws. Under these circumstances the court concludes that shared interests of the several states in furthering fundamental social policies represented by the fair enforcement of this forum’s laws favors exercise of personal jurisdiction over the corporate defendants.

6. Conclusions as to Existence of Personal Jurisdiction Over the Corporate Defendants

Exercise of personal jurisdiction over STYGA and Helford for all of plaintiffs claims except the claim for intentional misrepresentation is fair and reasonable under the facts of this case because by sailing the M/T GEORGIOS M. into the forum with MARPOL/APPS violations, negotiating a guilty plea in the forum pursuant to which these defendants incriminated the plaintiff, and agreeing to aid in his prosecution even though they knew or would have learned upon conducting an investigation that plaintiff was not responsible for the MARPOL and APPS violations on-board the M/T GEORGIOS M„ STYGA and Helford should not be surprised to be haled into court to answer for their conduct.

E. Conclusions

STYGA and Helford’s amended motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction will be granted as to plaintiffs claim for intentional misrepresentation because plaintiffs allegations reflect that the actions underlying this claim did not o