Opinion
10 Civ. 6041 (JGK).
August 24, 2010
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The plaintiff should show cause by August 30, 2010, why this case should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The plaintiff alleges jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship but the plaintiff and defendant both appear to be aliens. See Corporacion Venezolana de Fomento v. Vintero Sales Corp., 629 F.2d 786, 790 (2d Cir. 1980).
The plaintiff also asserts maritime jurisdiction. The complaint appears to be based on an alleged breach of commission agreements to obtain shipbuilding contracts. The plaintiff should explain how such a claim could support maritime jurisdiction, in light of the fact that neither shipbuilding contracts nor contracts for the sale of ships constitute bases for such jurisdiction. See Aggelikos Prostatis Corp. v. Shun Da Shipping Grp. Ltd., 646 F. Supp. 2d 330, 332-35 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); Primera Maritime (Hellas) Ltd. V. Jiangsu Eastern Heavy Indus. Co., No. 08 Civ. 11299, 2009 WL 249249, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2009).See also CTI-Container Leasing Corp. v. Oceanic Operations Corp., 682 F.2d 377, 380 n. 4 (2d Cir. 1982).