McCarthy v. Qatar Airways, Q.C.S.C.

Background

Ana McCarthy filed the action against Qatar Airways, Q.C.S.C., invoking diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction and alleging that the defendant violated her rights. She appeared without a lawyer and had previously been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.

McCarthy alleged that Qatar Airways is located in and incorporated under the laws of Qatar. She said the events giving rise to her claims occurred in Israel on October 7, 2023. Her complaint included allegations about her family history, her Jewish background, events involving Israel and Hamas, and alleged persecution of Jews. She sought "$4,000,000,000,000.00 Freezing of assets."

Foreign Sovereign Immunity

The court applied the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a federal law that generally protects foreign states and their government-owned agencies from lawsuits in United States courts unless a statutory exception applies. The court found that Qatar Airways is wholly owned by the State of Qatar and is therefore covered by that law.

The court considered the exception for commercial activity carried on in the United States. It found that McCarthy alleged no facts about Qatar Airways and no facts showing that her claims were based on commercial activity conducted in the United States. The court also noted that she alleged the events occurred in Israel. Because she did not plead facts suggesting that an exception to immunity applied, the court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over her claims against Qatar Airways.

The court additionally noted that McCarthy had not alleged facts showing that venue was proper in the Southern District of New York. The court did not rely on that point as the stated basis for dismissal.

Requested Criminal Prosecution

The complaint appeared to seek criminal charges against Qatar Airways or Qatar. The court explained that a private person cannot require federal prosecutors or a court to arrest or prosecute someone. It dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction any claims seeking criminal prosecution of another person or entity because McCarthy lacked legal standing to cause such a prosecution.

Amendment and Disposition

Although courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a defective complaint, the court found that amendment would be futile because the defects could not be corrected. It therefore denied leave to amend.

The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied McCarthy permission to appeal without prepaying fees.