Abadi v. American Airlines Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:23-cv-04033
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Abadi v. American Airlines, Judge Liman partly granted and partly denied reconsideration, keeping claims against President Biden dismissed while restoring claims against other federal defendants for service.
Aaron Abadi’s claims against President Biden remain dismissed, while his claims against the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Anthony Steven Fauci, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Robert Ray Redfield, Jr., and the United States Department of Health and Human Services may proceed to service under the new service order.
What happened
In Abadi v. American Airlines Group, Inc., Aaron Abadi, who represented himself, asked the court to reconsider its earlier decision dismissing claims against President Biden and several federal agencies and officials. He said he was bringing claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Administrative Procedure Act and had completed the required administrative steps for the tort claims.
The court kept the claims against President Biden dismissed because the court said presidents are protected from damages lawsuits for actions taken in their official capacity. But the court found that Abadi alleged facts suggesting he had completed the required administrative process for his Federal Tort Claims Act claims against the other federal defendants.
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the reconsideration motion in part and denied it in part, vacated the earlier service order, and directed that a new service order be issued for all defendants except President Biden. The court also denied special fee-free appeal status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Abadi v. American Airlines Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-04033
- Lewis Liman
- Aug. 31, 2023
Background
Aaron Abadi filed the action without a lawyer. On August 23, 2023, the court dismissed his claims against President Biden, the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Anthony Steven Fauci, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Robert Ray Redfield, Jr., and the United States Department of Health and Human Services based on sovereign immunity. The court directed service on the remaining defendants.
Abadi sought reconsideration the next day. He asserted that his claims against the federal defendants arose under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and that he had exhausted his administrative remedies under the FTCA.
Court’s analysis
The court held that the claims against President Biden remained dismissed. It explained that the President has absolute immunity from damages claims based on official acts. Because Abadi’s claims against President Biden concerned actions performed in his official capacity, the court stated that those claims were barred by presidential immunity and were frivolous under the statutory screening rules cited in the opinion.
The court reached a different conclusion regarding the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Fauci, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Redfield, Jr., and the Department of Health and Human Services. The FTCA waives sovereign immunity for certain tort claims seeking money damages based on conduct by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. Before filing an FTCA claim in federal court, a claimant generally must submit an administrative claim and receive a final written decision, or wait six months without one. The court stated that this requirement is jurisdictional and cannot be waived. It found that Abadi alleged facts suggesting he had completed this process.
The opinion’s footnote also states that the APA permits review of agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed, but not action committed to agency discretion by law. It says that Abadi’s APA challenge to the mask mandate was likely moot because the mandate had been lifted. The court did not otherwise decide the merits of that APA issue in this order.
Disposition
The court granted Abadi’s motion for reconsideration in part as to the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Fauci, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Redfield, Jr., and the Department of Health and Human Services. It denied the motion in part as to President Biden. The Clerk of Court was directed to vacate the August 23, 2023 Order of Service, and the court stated that it would issue a new Order of Service directing service on all defendants except President Biden.
The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.