A Case Analysis gives students a chance to demonstrate critical thinking skills as well as knowledge of legal vocabulary. Please make sure to answer the questions asked, including defining any legal terms.

Below, you are provided the facts of a case. An issue is identified and a set of rules is also provided.Please answer the issue following the Conclusion-Rule-Analysis-Conclusion (CRAC) format.

Government of Egypt Procure. v. M/V Robert E. Lee, 216 F.Supp.2d 468 (D. Md., 2002)

FACTS

Waterman Steamship Corporation (Defendant) is aNew Yorkcorporation with its principal place of business in New Orleans,Louisiana.

The Government of Egypt Procurement Office (EPO) (Plaintiff) is a foreign governmental entity with its place of business at the Egyptian Embassy inWashington, D.C. The EPO purchases military equipment from the U.S. for export to Egypt.

On or about May 14, 1998, at Alexandria, Egypt, Waterman accepted Plaintiff's cargo shipment of two military helicopters "in good order and condition' for direct transportation on Defendant's ship M/V ROBERT E. LEE to the Port of New Orleans, for ultimate delivery in Panama City,Florida. On or about August 27, 1998, the helicopters arrived n Panama City, Florida "seriously damaged and depreciated in value."

Plaintiff filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on August 14, 2001.Defendant moved for dismissal on the ground that the venue in Maryland is improper.

In support of its filing inMaryland, EPO stated that it leases a warehouse inMaryland, where EPO employs an agent to arrange for cargo transports. Waterman has carried numerous shipments booked through the facility. Waterman is listed in shipping directories inMaryland.

Waterman points out that the M/V ROBERT E. LEE was never present in the port or waters of Baltimore, that no parties in suit reside in Maryland, and that the contract in question was signed outside of Maryland.

ISSUE

Does the United States District Court for the District of Maryland have personal (in personam) jurisdiction over Waterman Steamship Corporation?

RULE

For United States District Court for the District of Maryland to exercise personal jurisdiction over Waterman Steamship Corporation (Defendant), due process requires that it have at least "minimum contacts" with Maryland "such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions offair play and substantial justice."

Physical presence within Maryland is not required to establish "minimum contacts" over a non-resident defendant. Personal jurisdiction may be established if it can be shown that the Waterman Steamship Corporation (Defendant) has purposefully directed its activities towards the residents of Maryland