Doe v. Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft

Background

John Doe and Robert Roe sued in state court, alleging that Lufthansa employees wrongfully disclosed their marital status when they flew from Saudi Arabia to the United States in May 2021. Defendants removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and federal-question jurisdiction based on preemption under the Montreal Convention.

In the notice of removal, defendants identified Doe as a California citizen, Roe as a Saudi Arabian citizen, Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft as a German citizen, and Paul Majeran as the sole member of Lufthansa Group Business Services New York LLC (LGBS). The Ninth Circuit later directed supplemental briefing concerning diversity jurisdiction. Defendants acknowledged that they had incorrectly identified Majeran as LGBS’s sole member. They stated that LGBS’s actual sole member was Lufthansa Technik North America Holding Corp., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

The Ninth Circuit issued a limited remand so this Court could determine whether diversity jurisdiction existed and whether Lufthansa and LGBS could amend the notice of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1653. Defendants then moved for leave to amend the notice.

Legal Standard

Section 1653 allows a court to permit correction of defective jurisdictional allegations when jurisdiction actually exists. It does not allow a party to create jurisdiction by adding new jurisdictional facts that did not exist. After the 30-day removal period, a notice generally may be amended to clarify defective jurisdictional allegations, but not to add substantive new allegations.

Because an LLC’s citizenship follows the citizenship of its members, the citizenship of LGBS depended on the citizenship of its sole member. Defendants argued that the proposed amendment would correct the identity and citizenship of that member. Plaintiffs did not dispute that diversity jurisdiction would exist if the amendment were allowed. Plaintiffs instead argued that defendants were attempting to replace one substantive factual statement with a contradictory one.

Court’s Analysis

The Court concluded that the proposed amendment corrected an incorrect statement about jurisdiction that already existed when the case was filed and removed. Defendants submitted declarations stating that Majeran was LGBS’s managing director, not its member, and that Lufthansa Technik was LGBS’s sole member. The evidence included LGBS’s amended and restated limited liability company agreement and business records concerning Lufthansa Technik.

The Court also rejected plaintiffs’ authentication objection. Authentication is the requirement that evidence be shown to be what its proponent claims it is. The Court found that Arthur Molins’s declaration provided sufficient initial evidence to authenticate the limited liability company agreement. Molins was Lufthansa’s General Counsel for the Americas, had access to documents concerning Lufthansa Group entities, had been personally involved in creating LGBS’s formation documents, and stated that the attached agreement was true and correct.

Ruling

The Court GRANTED defendants’ motion to amend the notice of removal. Defendants were ordered to file an amended notice of removal no later than September 12, 2025. The order addressed the correction of jurisdictional allegations and did not decide the plaintiffs’ underlying claims concerning disclosure of their marital status.