Abadi v. American Airlines Inc.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:23-cv-04033
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Abadi v. American Airlines, Judge Liman granted Aerofloat’s removal but denied alternative service without prejudice to refiling.
Aaron Abadi, Aerofloat, and the three unserved airline defendants identified as China Air, China Southern, and Sun Country.
What happened
In Abadi v. American Airlines Inc., Aaron Abadi asked to remove Aerofloat as a defendant and to use alternative methods to serve several defendants.
The court granted the request to remove Aerofloat. It denied the request to serve China Air, China Southern, and Sun Country by certified mail and email because Abadi cited no supporting legal authority and did not address a rule restricting service by a party.
Judge Liman ruled that the motion was granted in part and denied in part. The alternative-service request was denied without prejudice to refiling with legal authority by May 3, 2024.
The detailed version
- Abadi v. American Airlines Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-04033
- Lewis Liman
- Apr. 18, 2024
Background
The court considered Aaron Abadi’s February 2024 motion to remove Aerofloat as a defendant and to obtain permission for alternative service on several defendants. The case had been pending for nearly a year, and three airline defendants—China Air, China Southern, and Sun Country—had not been served.
Rulings
The court granted Abadi’s request to remove Aerofloat under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and 21 and the court’s inherent authority.
The court denied Abadi’s request for alternative service. Abadi proposed sending the summons and complaint to China Air, China Southern, and Sun Country by certified mail and email, but the court found that he had cited no authority supporting the request and had not addressed Rule 4(c)(2), which the court said prohibits a party in the action from serving process.
The order states that the motion was granted in part and denied in part. More specifically, the request to remove Aerofloat was granted, and the alternative-service request was denied without prejudice to refiling with legal authority by May 3, 2024.
Classification
This is a procedural order. It addressed removal of a defendant and methods of service, not the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.