On August 22, 2016, a New York District Court dismissed a lawsuit against Airbus (a French company) for lack of personal jurisdiction over non-domiciliaries. Merritt v. Airbus Ams., Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111572 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2016).
In this product liability case, a flight attendant for United Airlines based in JFK airport, Jamaica, New York, was injured while working on a flight from Boston to Washington. The flight attendant sued Airbus Americas Inc. (AAI) and Airbus S.A.S seeking $1.5 million, alleging that Airbus leased the place to United Airlines. AAI and Airbus S.A.S. are “affiliated corporations” selling and leasing aircrafts, as well as providing “technical support of aircraft operating in all 50 states of the United States of America.” AAI is a Delaware Corporation with principal place of business in Herndon, Virginia while Airbus S.A.S. is a French company with principal place of business in France (hence both non-domiciliaries of New York, collectively “Airbus”).
Plaintiff could not establish jurisdiction over Defendants. In fact, when Defendants moved to dismiss the claim for lack of personal jurisdiction, Plaintiff could not establish jurisdiction under C.P.L.R. §302(a), New York’s “long-arm” statute.
The long-arm statute allows for specific jurisdiction over non-domiciliaries, among others, when a party “transacts business” in New York. In order for this to happen, it is necessary to establish that the defendant’s activities within New York are purposeful and that there is a substantial “nexus” between the transaction of business and the claim asserted. “Ultimately, the analysis must focus on the nature and quality of the individual defendant’s contact with the forum and whether such contact has a strong relationship to the claims based on the totality of the circumstances.”
Plaintiff’s attempt to satisfy these two conditions failed. In particular, the Court noted that the company’s internet existence and use of it to advertise in North America are not sufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff failed to provide facts suggesting that these advertisements specifically targeted New York, that any supplemental business transactions occurred in New York, or that Airbus S.A.S. maintained “permanence or continuity” in New York. Moreover, Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants’ entered into any business transactions in New York related to her cause of action.
Irrelevant to establish jurisdiction under the long-arm statute was also Defendants’ spending of $150 billion in transactions with companies that have offices in New York, which is not a basis for jurisdiction
Finally, Plaintiff alleged that her injury occurred some time between taking off in Boston and landing in Washington, but failed to prove where her cause of action arose. Ultimately, she failed to demonstrate any relationship between her alleged injuries and the State of New York, which was only the jurisdiction in which she was based.
Merritt v. Airbus Ams., Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111572 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2016) is available here.
Originally published on CGCFirm on September 2016