Assaf v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Background

Lina Assaf fell on a jetway at Terminal B, Gate 56 of Newark Liberty International Airport while disembarking a United flight from Athens, Greece. The plaintiffs alleged that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and United Airlines Inc. negligently maintained the jetway. Lina and George Assaf filed negligence claims against both defendants; George also asserted a claim for loss of spousal support and consortium. The plaintiffs sought damages under New York law.

The plaintiffs initially filed the case in New York state court. United removed it to the Southern District of New York. The parties agreed that the court had subject-matter jurisdiction based on the Montreal Convention, an international treaty governing certain international air transportation claims. United then moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction—meaning sufficient legal authority over United to require it to defend the case in New York.

Personal Jurisdiction

The plaintiffs relied on New York’s long-arm statute, which can permit jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant that conducts business in New York when the claim is sufficiently connected to that business. The court assumed, for purposes of the motion, that United transacted business in New York. It also assumed that the plaintiffs purchased their tickets in New York, even though the complaint did not allege that fact and the plaintiffs did not provide supporting evidence for it.

The court nevertheless held that the plaintiffs had not shown the required connection between United’s New York activities and Lina’s injury. The accident occurred in New Jersey, and the flight traveled from Athens to New Jersey, not to or from New York. The court concluded that purchasing a ticket in New York, standing alone, did not establish personal jurisdiction for a personal-injury claim arising from an incident outside New York.

The court distinguished the cases cited by the plaintiffs. It explained that one involved extensive, continuous activities by an airline’s New York agent, and the other involved a doctor who treated or was available to treat passengers on a cruise that departed from and returned to New York Harbor. The court found those circumstances materially different from the plaintiffs’ allegations concerning United.

Request to Transfer

The plaintiffs asked the court to transfer the case to the federal court in New Jersey if it found that New York lacked jurisdiction over United. The court noted that the plaintiffs had not formally moved for transfer and had raised the request only in their opposition to United’s motion. They also had not addressed whether the claims against United could be separated and transferred while the claims against the Port Authority remained in New York, or whether transfer would create multiple lawsuits concerning the same incident.

The court further noted that the plaintiffs had identified no prejudice from dismissing United without prejudice, such as a statute-of-limitations problem. It concluded that transfer would not serve the interests of justice and declined to transfer the case on its own.

Disposition

Judge John P. Cronan granted United’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The opinion referred to dismissing United without prejudice. The court directed the plaintiffs to file a letter within two weeks stating whether they intended to continue pursuing the case against the Port Authority in the Southern District of New York. The clerk was directed to terminate United’s motion.