OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs General Electric International, Inc. and General Electric International, Inc. Taiwan Branch (USA) bring this maritime action against Defendants Thorco Shipping America, Inc. (“Thorco Shipping”) and Thorco Projects A/S (“Thorco Projects”). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, who operate as common carriers of goods for hire, were negligent in their handling and transportation of certain cargo owned by Plaintiffs, and thereby breached their statutory, common law, and contractual duties and obligations to Plaintiffs. Thorco Projects moves to dismiss the Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), for improper forum pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3), or for forum non conveniens. Thorco Projects further seeks to stay discovery pending the Court’s decision on its motion to dismiss. For the reasons stated below, the Court denies Thorco Projects’s motion to stay discovery. The Court also denies Thorco Projects’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction without prejudice to Thorco Projects renewing its motion to dismiss after the completion of jurisdictional discovery. I. Background A. Facts1 On or about January 16, 2015, Plaintiffs and Thorco Shipping entered into a services contract titled, “Ocean Transportation Contract for Project Cargo,” pursuant to which Thorco Shipping agreed to provide transportation services for cargo shipments. Dkt. 25 (“Putallaz Declaration”), Exh. A (“Ocean Transportation Contract”); Complaint 10.2 Thorco Shipping’s responsibilities under the Ocean Transportation Contract include, among other things, providing a “seaworthy” vessel, either owned or chartered by Thorco Shipping, for the transportation of cargo, id.
6.2, 8.2, 8.3, “loading, handling, stowage, securement, and discharge” of the cargo, id. 14.2(a); Complaint 12, and providing Plaintiffs with “daily reports of the Vessel’s position, ETA at discharge point, damage to vessel or the [cargo], and expected delays,” Ocean Transportation Contract 9.4. The parties agreed that the Ocean Transportation Contract would “appl[y] to all Project Cargo shipments that [Plaintiffs] tender[] to [Thorco Shipping] during the Term for performance of Services specified in this Contract, its Appendixes, and any [Statement of Work] issued hereunder.” Id. 3.1. Thorco Projects is not a signatory to the Ocean Transportation Contract nor mentioned by name anywhere in that contract. See generally Ocean Transportation Contract. As relevant here, the Ocean Transportation Contract provides that New York law governs the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract. Id. 32.1. It also contains a forum selection clause, designating federal or state court in New York as the appropriate forum for commencing any litigation arising out of the Ocean Transportation Contract, and provides that “[t]he parties submit to personal jurisdiction in [New York federal or state court] and waive any defenses regarding venue or forum non conveniens.” Id. 32.2. Moreover, the Ocean Transportation Contract expressly states that its terms “take precedence over any alternative terms and conditions in any other document connected with this transaction unless such alternative terms are expressly incorporated by reference on the face of this Contract.” Id. 35. Several other provisions of the Ocean Transportation Contract are to the same effect. See id.
