Selke v. Germanwings GmbH

• Decision Date: 20 July 2017
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:17–cv–00121–GBL–TCB
• Citation: 261 F.Supp.3d 645
• Parties: Raymond C. SELKE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GERMANWINGS GMBH, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia

261 F.Supp.3d 645

Raymond C. SELKE, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.GERMANWINGS GMBH, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:17–cv–00121–GBL–TCB

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division.

Signed July 20, 2017

Peter Andrew Miller, Thomas Francis Dellafera, Jr., Miller Dellafera PLC, Henrico, VA, Ronald L.M. Goldman, A. Ilyas Akbari, Diane Marger Moore, Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, P.C., Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Jeffrey S. Poretz, Laura Lee Golden Liff, Miles & Stockbridge PC, Tysons Corner, VA, Courtney Botts Schaefer, Miles & Stockbridge PC, Rockville, MD, Christopher Carlsen, Clyde & Co., US, LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Gerald Bruce Lee, United States District Judge

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants Germanwings GmbH ("Germanwings"), Deutsche Lufthansa AG ("Lufthansa"), and Eurowings GmbH's ("Eurowings") (collectively "Defendants") Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment¹ Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 56. (Dkt. No. 42.) This case concerns a suit for money damages brought by Plaintiffs Raymond C. Selke and Trevor J. Selke ("Plaintiffs") on two claims against Defendants for liability in the crash of Germanwings Flight 9525, which resulted in the death of Plaintiffs' family members, Yvonne C. Selke and Emily E. Selke ("Selke decedents"). First, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants owe money damages under the liability parameters of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air ("Montreal Convention"),² an international air carriage treaty ratified by the United States. Second, Plaintiffs in the alternative charge that Defendants are liable for the deaths of the Selke decedents based on a claim of negligence under Virginia state law.

There are five issues before the Court. The first issue is whether, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), the Court should grant Defendant Germanwings' Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, where Germanwings maintained no physical presence in Virginia but sold tickets to Virginia residents through an agent located in the Commonwealth. The Court denies Germanwings' Motion to Dismiss because Germanwings expressly authorized another airline to sell its tickets in Virginia, thus availing itself of the privilege of conducting business in the forum.

The second issue is whether the Court should grant Defendant Lufthansa's Rule 12(b)(2) Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, where Lufthansa authorized another airline to sell tickets in Virginia on its behalf and maintained steady operations from a Virginia airport. The Court denies Lufthansa's Motion to Dismiss because in addition to selling its tickets to Virginia residents through an agent based in the forum, Lufthansa also employs Virginia citizens and operates daily flights from Dulles International Airport.

The third issue is whether the Court should grant Lufthansa's Rule 56 Motion for Summary Judgment, where Lufthansa did not provide the actual carriage that resulted in the deaths of Plaintiffs' decedents. The Court grants Lufthansa's Motion for Summary Judgment because the Montreal Convention exclusively governs Plaintiffs' claims and Lufthansa's status as a "successive carrier" under the Convention does not confer liability for the crash of Germanwings Flight 9525.

The fourth issue is whether the Court should grant Defendant Eurowings' Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, where the airline has no physical presence in Virginia, was not party to the transaction that provided the Selke decedents with carriage to Europe, and did not sell tickets via its contractual relationship with an agent in Virginia. The Court grants Eurowings' Motion to Dismiss because Eurowings does not have minimum contacts in Virginia sufficient for the Court to assert jurisdiction under the requirements of the Due Process Clause.

The fifth issue is whether the Court should grant Eurowings' Rule 56 Motion for Summary Judgment where the airline did not participate in nor contribute to any of the carriage that resulted in the crash of Germanwings Flight 9525. Because the Court may not exercise jurisdiction over Eurowings, the Court does not address the issues raised by Eurowings' Rule 56 motion.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Parties

Plaintiffs Raymond C. Selke and Trevor J. Selke ("Plaintiffs") are the surviving members of the Selke family. Plaintiff Raymond C. Selke is the surviving husband of Yvonne C. Selke and father of decedent Emily E. Selke. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 2.) Plaintiff Raymond C. Selke is also administrator of the decedents' estates. Id. Plaintiff Trevor J. Selke is the surviving son of Yvonne C. Selke and brother of Emily E. Selke. (Id. ¶¶ 13, 14.)

Defendant Germanwings GmbH is a commercial airline organized and existing under the laws of Germany. (Dkt. No. 42 ¶ 2.) Germanwings also maintains its headquarters and its principal place of business in Cologne, Germany. (Id. ¶ 3.) Germanwings is an international air carrier that operates flights to 103 destinations worldwide, none of which have ever operated to or from Virginia, or any other state in the United States. (Dkt. No. 45.) Germanwings does not have an office in Virginia, or in any other state of the United States, and does not employ any citizens of either Virginia or the United States as a whole. (Id. at 10.) Germanwings is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Lufthansa. (Dkt. No. 43–1 at 2.)

Defendant Deutsche Lufthansa AG is a commercial airline organized and existing under the laws of Germany, with a headquarters and principal place of business in Cologne, Germany. (Dkt. No. 43–1 at 11.) Lufthansa operates flights to 205 international destinations, 19 of which are located in the United States, including one in Virginia. (Id. at 10.) Lufthansa also employs 430 citizens of the United States, 17 of whom are residents of Virginia. Id. Lufthansa is the parent corporation of both Germanwings and Eurowings. (Dkt. No. 43–1 at 2.)

Defendant Eurowings GmbH is a commercial airline organized and existing under the laws of Germany. (Dkt. No. 42 at 6.) Eurowings' headquarters and principal place of business are located in Düsseldorf, Germany. Id. Eurowings offers flights to 124 international destinations, operating approximately 2,767 flights per week. (Id. at 11.) Eurowings provides carriage to several destinations in the United States, including Seattle, Washington; Las Vegas, Nevada; and Miami, Florida. Id. Eurowings has never operated any flights from or to Virginia, does not maintain an office in Virginia, and has never employed any Virginia residents. Id. Eurowings is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Lufthansa. (Dkt. No. 43–1 at 2.)

Defendant United Airlines, Inc. ("United") is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 15.) United is a domestic and international air carrier that operates flights to and from five destinations within the Commonwealth of Virginia and employs 5,700 Virginia citizens. (Dkt. No. 15–1 ¶ 34.)

B. Defendants' Business Relationships with United Airlines, Inc.

Defendants maintain business agreements with United that permit United to sell tickets for flights performed by Germanwings, Eurowings, and Lufthansa. (Dkt. 43–1 at 4–6.) Defendants' ticketing agreements with United fall into two categories: "interline" agreements and "codeshare" agreements. Id. Germanwings, Eurowings, and Lufthansa maintain interline agreements with United, which involve business relationships where the carriers engage in mutual acceptance of tickets and baggage, but operate independently from one another. Id. Germanwings, Eurowings, and Lufthansa each also have separate codeshare agreements with United wherein United may sell under its own authority passage on one of the other carriers. (Dkt. No. 43–1 at 6.) Under these codeshare sales, United assumes responsibility for any flights booked despite the performance of actual carriage by another airline. Id.

Lufthansa and United, along with 27 other airlines, are members of the "Star Alliance," an international group of air carriers sharing mutual connection locations, reciprocal frequent flier membership benefits, and flight check-in recognition. (Dkt. 43–1 at 7.) Neither Germanwings nor Eurowings is a member of the Star Alliance. Id.

C. Crash of Germanwings Flight No. 9525

Plaintiffs allege that in or around February 2015, the Selke decedents booked air carriage on five flights through United's website for a European vacation scheduled from March 20, 2015 to March 29, 2015. (Dkt. 45 at 8.) Decedents were scheduled to travel from Washington Dulles Airport in Virginia to Munich, Germany on United, and then from Munich to Barcelona, Spain on March 20, 2015 via Lufthansa. Id. On March 24, 2015, the Selke decedents were scheduled to travel from Barcelona to Düsseldorf, Germany on Germanwings, and then from Düsseldorf to Manchester, England on Germanwings. Id. Finally, on March 29, 2015, decedents were scheduled to return home from Manchester to Washington Dulles via carriage provided by United. Id.

On the flight between Barcelona and Düsseldorf on Germanwings Flight No. 9525 ("Flight 9525"), co-pilot Andreas Lubitz locked himself in the cockpit and caused the plane to rapidly descend and crash into the French Alps. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 1.) Tragically, all 6 crew members and 144 passengers, including the Selke decedents, were killed. Id.

Plaintiffs allege that by not maintaining safety measures requiring two crew members to remain present in the cockpit at all times, Germanwings and, by association, Eurowings, Lufthansa and United negligently operated Flight 9525, proximately causing the crash that killed the Selke decedents. Id.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standards of Review

1. Rule 12(b)(2)

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), the Court may dismiss a case for lack of personal jurisdiction. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2). Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that...