Siswanto v. Airbus Americas, Inc.
| Decision Date | 09 December 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 15-CV-5486 |
| Parties | Aris Siswanto, Personal Representative of the Heirs of Mrs. Susiyah, deceased, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Airbus Americas, Inc. et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This case arises from the tragic December 28, 2014 crash of AirAsia Flight 8501 during its flight from Surabaya, Indonesia to Singapore. Plaintiffs are personal representatives of the heirs of several deceased passengers. On February 26, 2016, three of the seven named Defendants, Honeywell International, Inc. ("Honeywell"), Doric Corporation ("Doric"), and Goodrich Corporation ("Goodrich") (collectively, "Moving Defendants"), filed a joint motion to dismiss the case for forum non conveniens. Moving Defs.' Mot. Dismiss [77]. In support of their motion, Moving Defendants offered, inter alia, a declaration from Mr. Wahyuni Bahar ("Bahar"), an Indonesian attorney, regarding the adequacy and availability of Indonesia as an alternative forum. Moving Defs.' Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss [78] Attach. 4. On June 24, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Bar Bahar's opinions. Pls.' Motion to Bar [109]. This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses both pending motions. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiffs' Motion to Bar [109] is denied and Moving Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [77] is granted in part and denied in part.
On December 28, 2014, AirAsia Flight 8501, operated by PT Indonesia AirAsia ("AirAsia"), crashed in the Java Sea near Borneo, Indonesia while en route from Surabaya, Indonesia to Singapore. Moving Defs.' Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss [78] Attach. 1 at 13, 17. At the time of the crash, the flight was operating in Indonesian airspace under the direction of Indonesian air traffic control. Id. at 15. The crash resulted in the deaths of all 156 passengers and six flight crew on board. Id. at 17. The nationalities of the 162 fatalities were as follows: 155 Indonesian, three South Korean, one French, one Malaysian, one Singaporean, and one British. Id. at 17-18.
Indonesia's National Transportation Safety Committee (the Komite Nasional Keselamatan Transportasi) ("KNKT") conducted the official investigation into the crash and issued its Final Report on December 1, 2015. See generally id. Transportation agencies from Australia, France, Singapore, and Malaysia also participated in the inquiry. Id. at 13. The United States National Transportation and Safety Board ("NTSB") did not contribute. Id.
The KNKT investigation revealed the following: during flight, the pilots of Flight 8501 experienced four separate failures of the aircraft's Rudder TravelLimiter Units ("RTLU's") within a period of approximately 15 minutes.1 Id. at 13. These four failures each triggered caution messages on the aircraft's Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitoring ("ECAM") system. Moving Defs.' Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss [78] Attach. 1 at 13. The pilots remedied the first three disruptions by resetting the Flight Augmentation Computer ("FAC") that performed rudder travel limitation. Id. at 15, 37. These resets briefly returned the RTLU's to normal function. Id.
After the fourth failure, however, the pilots attempted a different corrective measure and reset the FAC circuit breakers. Id. at 15. According to the KNKT report, the change in the pilots' response may have been inspired by the Pilot in Command's ("PIC's") prior experience. Id. at 106. Just four days before the crash, the PIC encountered a similar RTLU failure on the same aircraft during push back from the terminal gate. Id. at 21. After returning the aircraft to the parking bay, the pilot observed a company engineer reset the FAC circuit breakers. Id. When the pilot asked the engineer if he could perform the same reset action if the problem reappeared, the engineer stated that the pilot could reset the FAC circuit breakers whenever instructed by the ECAM. Id.
The pilots' reset of the FAC circuit breakers on December 28, 2014, however, produced different consequences during flight than on the ground. Id. at 106, 112. Specifically, the reset disengaged the aircraft's autopilot and the aircraft's rudder deflected two degrees to the left. Id. at 104. The KNKT report stated that at thatpoint, the pilots should have flown the aircraft manually and immediately leveled the wings. Id. at 104, 107. This, however, did not occur for several seconds. Id. at 104. By that time, the aircraft had rolled left up to fifty-four degrees. Moving Defs.' Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss [78] Attach. 1 at 104. Additionally, when the pilots finally took corrective action, commands from the PIC were ambiguous and the Second in Command ("SIC") took inappropriate countermeasures. Id. at 113. As a tragic result, the aircraft entered a prolonged, unrecoverable stall condition. Id. at 108, 113, 122.
The KNKT investigation further revealed that in the year preceding the crash, the accident aircraft experienced 23 reported Rudder Travel Limiter problems. Id. at 120. Despite the recurring defect, however, no AirAsia maintenance actions adequately resolved the problem. Id. at 121.
The accident aircraft, an Airbus A320-216 registered as PK-AXC, was designed, assembled, and sold by Airbus, S.A.S. Moving Defs.' Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss [78] Attach. 2 ¶ 6. Airbus, S.A.S. is an aircraft manufacturing company organized under French law with its principal place of business in Toulouse, France. Id. ¶ 3.
Airbus, S.A.S. has manufactured several variants of the A320, including the A320-216. Id. Final assembly of these aircraft occurs in Toulouse, France; Hamburg, Germany; and Tianjin, China. The design, assembly, and sale of the accident aircraft all occurred in Europe. Id. ¶ 6.
Airbus, S.A.S. sold the accident aircraft in a 2005 purchase agreement to AirAsia Berhad, a Malaysian air carrier that does not operate in the United States. Id. ¶ 7. AirAsia Berhad assigned the purchase agreement to Doric 10 Labuan, a Malaysian limited liability company, and Doric 10 Labuan then leased the aircraft back to AirAsia Berhad. Moving Defs.' Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss [78] Attach. 2 ¶ 8. In 2008, Airbus, S.A.S. delivered and transferred title to the accident aircraft to Doric 10 Labuan via AirAsia Berhad in Blagnac, France. Id. ¶ 9.
The European Aviation Safety Agency issued a Type Certificate for the Airbus A320-216 aircraft model, as well as individually certifying the accident aircraft. Id. ¶ 10. The A320-216 aircraft model, however, has not received a Type Certificate from the United States Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") and thus, the accident aircraft did not receive individual certification from the FAA. Id. ¶¶ 11, 13. The A320-216 aircraft model is not operated by any Airbus, S.A.S. customer in the United States, and, to the best of Airbus, S.A.S.'s knowledge, the accident aircraft was never operated in the United States prior to its crash. Id. ¶¶ 12, 14.
Airbus, S.A.S. was previously a named defendant in Plaintiffs' Original, Amended, and Second Amended Complaints. Compl. [1]; Am. Compl. [6]; Second Am. Compl. [32]. On December 30, 2015, however, this Court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims against Airbus, S.A.S. for lack of personal jurisdiction. Mem. Op. and Order [63].
AirAsia is a privately held Indonesian corporation with its headquarters in Tangerang, Baten near Jakarta, Indonesia. Moving Defs.' Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss [78] Attach. 6 at 1. AirAsia flies routes throughout Indonesia and to destinations in Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand. Id. AirAsia does not operate any aircraft to, from, or within the United States and AirAsia has never possessed operating rights in or to the United States. Id.
AirAsia is not a defendant in the present suit. Pls.' Fourth Am. Compl. [135]. AirAsia refuses to voluntarily consent to jurisdiction of a court located in the United States, and, absent an order from an Indonesian court, will not make its employees available for depositions in the United States or produce documents for use in United States litigation. Moving Defs.' Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss [78] Attach. 6 at 2.
Plaintiffs are personal representatives of the heirs of certain deceased passengers of Flight 8501.2 Fourth Am. Compl. [135] at 3. All Plaintiffs and decedents are citizens of countries other than the United States. Id. Plaintiffs bring suit against seven Defendants: (1) Honeywell; (2) Goodrich; (3) Doric; (4) Airbus Americas, Inc. ("Airbus Americas"); (5) Thales Avionics, S.A.S. ("Thales Avionics"); (6) Meggitt PLC ("Meggitt"); and (7) Artus, S.A.S. ("Artus"). Plaintiffsallege that each Defendant contributed to the fielding of an accident aircraft that was "defectively and unreasonably dangerous" in myriad respects. Id. at 4.
Plaintiffs assert that Moving Defendants—Honeywell, Goodrich, and Doric—are American corporations with their principal places of business in the United States. Fourth Am. Compl. [135] at 3-4. Plaintiffs claim that Honeywell and Goodrich designed, manufactured, and sold defective components that were ultimately installed in the accident aircraft, while Doric leased the completed accident aircraft to AirAsia.
Regarding Nonmoving Defendants, Plaintiffs allege that Thales Avionics, Meggitt, and Artus are French or British corporations that designed, manufactured, and sold other defective aircraft components. Id. at 3, 19, 24. Plaintiffs claim that Airbus Americas is an American corporation that marketed and promoted the accident aircraft. Id. at 4.
Before this Court can examine the propriety of the present forum, it must first determine the admissibility of the opinions of Wahyuni Bahar, Moving Defendants' Indonesian law expert.3 Plaintiffs proffer multiple justifications to exclude Bahar's testimony: Bahar is insufficiently qualified; his testimony lacks factual support; his...
To continue reading
Request your trial