Arzu v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
| Docket Number | 1:23-cv-02116 (SDA) |
| Decision Date | 31 August 2023 |
| Parties | Melissa Arzu, et al., Plaintiffs, v. American Airlines, Inc., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Presently before the Court are Defendant's motion, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss the Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, and Plaintiffs' motion, pursuant to Rule 15(a), to amend the Complaint. (Def.'s 5/19/23 Mot., ECF No. 20; Pls.' 7/28/23 Mot., ECF No. 26.) For the reasons set forth below Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED and Plaintiffs' motion to amend is DENIED.
This is an action brought by Melissa Arzu (“Arzu”) individually, and as the Administrator of the Estate of Decedent Kevin Ismael Greenidge (“Greenidge” or “Decedent”),[1] against Defendant American Airlines (“Defendant” or “American Airlines”)[2]arising out of Greenidge's death during Flight No. AA614 from Honduras to Miami International Airport on June 4, 2022 (the “Flight”). (Compl ¶¶ 1, 8, 15, 17.) During the Flight, Greenidge suddenly went into cardiac arrest and became unconscious. (Id. ¶ 15.) The Complaint alleges that, “as a consequence of [American Airline's] negligence in failing to maintain a working [defibrillator]” on the Flight, the death of Greenidge was “caused, permitted and/or hastened.” (Id. ¶ 17.)
On March 13, 2023, Plaintiffs commenced this action. (See Compl.) On May 11, 2023, an Order was issued on the parties' consent referring disposition of this matter to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (5/11/23 Order, ECF No. 17.) On May 19, 2023, American Airlines filed a motion, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6), seeking to dismiss the Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (See Def.'s 5/19/23 Mot.)
On May 25, 2023, the Court held a telephone conference. (5/25/23 Tr., ECF No. 32.) During the conference, when the Court addressed the issue of personal jurisdiction, Plaintiffs' counsel argued that American Airlines was subject to personal jurisdiction in this case because, among other reasons, American Airlines issued a ticket to a New York resident; American Airlines availed itself of the New York courts on many occasions; and American Airlines conducted substantial business in New York. (See id. at 5-6.) Following the conference, the Court entered an Order setting a briefing schedule for the motion to dismiss and staying discovery, except for jurisdictional discovery. (5/25/23 Order, ECF No. 22.) The Order required Plaintiffs to file their opposition to Defendant's motion no later than July 14, 2023. (See id. ¶ 1.)
On July 13, 2023, the day before Plaintiffs' opposition was due, Plaintiffs' counsel filed a letter arguing that Defendant's responses to jurisdictional discovery were inadequate. Specifically, Plaintiffs argued that there was “ample evidence that American [Airlines] can certainly consider itself to be ‘at home' in New York,” and that Plaintiffs “ha[d] not received a single shred of paper regarding the contacts that American Airlines has in New York.” (Id. at 1-2.)
On the morning of July 14, 2023, the Court entered an Order scheduling a telephone conference later the same day to address Plaintiffs' Letter Motion. (7/14/23 Scheduling Order, ECF No. 24.) During the telephone conference, in order to resolve the issue regarding American Airlines' contacts with New York, Defendant's counsel agreed to stipulate that, for purposes of the motion to dismiss only, American Airlines had extensive business contacts, including significant physical infrastructure and thousands of employees in New York. (7/14/23 Tr., ECF No. 34, at 14.)
Also during the July 14 conference, Plaintiffs' counsel stated that the “only concern” and the “only issue” regarding the defibrillator device related to personal jurisdiction was whether American Airlines performed maintenance, repairs or testing of the device in New York. (See 7/14/23 Tr. at 23.) In response, Defendant's counsel represented that there was no indication that maintenance or repairs were performed on the device and that any testing of the device would have occurred when the crew arrived on the aircraft, as required by an operator's manual.[3] (Id.) Following the telephone conference, on the same day, the Court entered an Order extending Plaintiffs' deadline to respond to Defendant's motion to dismiss and stating that, for the purposes of the motion to dismiss only, “the parties stipulate that American Airlines has extensive business contacts, including significant physical infrastructure and thousands of employees, in New York.” (7/14/23 Order, ECF No. 25.)
On July 28, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their motion to amend the Complaint “to add specific jurisdiction as a basis for personal jurisdiction in this matter as well as Long Arm jurisdiction under CPLR §302(a)(1)(2)(3) and due process” and their opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss. .) On August 11, 2023, Defendant filed its reply with respect to its motion to dismiss and its opposition to Plaintiffs' motion to amend. (Def.'s 8/11/23 Reply, ECF No. 30; Def.'s 8/11/23 Mem., ECF No. 31.) On August 18, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their reply with respect to their motion to amend. (Pls.' 8/18/23 Reply, ECF No. 36.)
On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court has jurisdiction over the defendant.” DiStefano v. Carozzi N. Am., Inc., 286 F.3d 81, 84 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting Bank Brussels Lambert v. Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez, 171 F.3d 779, 784 (2d Cir. 1999)). “[T]he showing a plaintiff must make to defeat a defendant's claim that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over it ‘varies depending on the procedural posture of the litigation.'” Dorchester Fin. Sec., Inc. v. Banco BRJ, S.A., 722 F.3d 81, 84 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Ball v. Metallurgie Hoboken-Overpelt, S.A., 902 F.2d 194, 197 (2d Cir. 1990)). Before jurisdictional discovery, a plaintiff's prima facie showing of jurisdiction “may be established solely by allegations.” Ball, 902 F.2d at 197.
However, where jurisdictional discovery has been conducted, a plaintiff's prima facie showing must be “factually supported”; in other words, it must “include an averment of facts that, if credited by [the ultimate trier of fact], would suffice to establish jurisdiction over the defendant.” Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson-Ceco Corp., 84 F.3d 560, 567 (2d Cir. 1996) (quoting Ball, 902 F.2d at 197). In assessing the plaintiff's showing, the court applies a “standard . . . akin to that on a motion for summary judgment,” construing the “pleadings documents, and other evidentiary materials . . . in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and all doubts are resolved in its favor.” Melnick v. Adelson-Melnick, 346 F.Supp.2d 499, 503 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).[4]
“[R]esolution of a [Rule 12(b)(2)] motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction made in the Southern District of New York requires a two-step analysis.” Bank Brussels Lambert, 305 F.3d at 124. “First, the court must determine if New York law would confer upon its courts the jurisdiction to reach the defendant,” such as under the New York general jurisdiction statute (i.e., N.Y. Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) § 301) and the long-arm statute (i.e., N.Y. CPLR § 302). See id. Second, if such a basis for jurisdiction exists, the court then must determine whether the extension of jurisdiction is permissible under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See id.; see also Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v. Deutsche Bank AG, No. 14-CV-01568 (JPO), 2015 WL 5091170, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2015) (to make out prima facie case of general or specific personal jurisdiction, plaintiff must establish both “statutory basis” for jurisdiction and that exercise of such jurisdiction accords “with constitutional due process principles” (quoting Reich v. Lopez, 38 F.Supp.3d 436, 454 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)).
General personal jurisdiction subjects a defendant to suit on all claims. See Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 127 (2014); see also Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011). In New York, pursuant to N.Y. CPLR § 301, general jurisdiction exists when a company “has engaged in such a continuous and systematic course of ‘doing business' [in New York] that a finding of its ‘presence' [in New York] is warranted.” Sonera Holding B.V. v. Cukurova Holding A.S., 750 F.3d 221, 224 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Landoil Res. Corp. v. Alexander & Alexander Servs., 77 N.Y.2d 28, 33 (1990) (alteration in original)). However, as noted above, even if general jurisdiction under N.Y. CPLR § 301 is satisfied, a court independently must ensure that due process is satisfied. See DeLorenzo v. Ricketts & Assocs., Ltd., No. 15-CV-02506 (VSB), 2017 WL 4277177, at *6-7 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2017), aff'd sub nom. DeLorenzo v. Viceroy Hotel Grp., LLC, 757 Fed.Appx. 6 (2d Cir. 2018). Under the Due Process Clause, a corporation can “be subject to general jurisdiction in a state only where its contacts are so ‘continuous and systematic' . . . that it is ‘essentially at home' in that state.” Gucci Am., Inc. v. Weixing Li, 768 F.3d 122, 135 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Daimler, 571 U.S. at 139). “Aside from ‘an exceptional case' . . . a...
To continue reading
Request your trial