Airline Awarded Summary Judgment In Personal Injury Case Despite Conflicting Testimony—Plaintiff Could Not Present A Credible Issue Of Fact

Plaintiff, Ahmed Mumtaz, sued Etihad Airways P.J.S.C. ("Etihad") claiming severe head injuries allegedly sustained on an Etihad flight between Abu Dhabi and New York. The action, originally brought in New Jersey state court, was removed to federal court for the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act because Etihad is wholly owned by the government of Abu Dhabi, and also under the Montreal Convention as the alleged incident occurred during the course of international transportation. During the course of extensive discovery, it became clear that plaintiff's claim had been fabricated, and that he had not sustained a bodily injury as a result of an "accident" as required by Article 17 of the Montreal Convention. In fact, there was no credible evidence that plaintiff sustained any injuries during the flight. While this appeared to be a classic "he said, she said" case, which ordinarily would preclude summary judgment, Etihad argued that summary judgment was warranted because there was no genuine issue of material fact, and that the Court should follow the rationale of the Second Circuit in Jeffreys v. City of New York, 426 F.3d 549 (2d Cir. 2005) (summary judgment...