Aviation Defendants Contend With Challenges To Federal Jurisdiction

Judith R. "Judy" Nemsick is a partner and Leonie W. Huang is an Associate in our New York office.

HIGHLIGHTS:

An aircraft manufacturer's ability to remove a case to federal court based on admiralty jurisdiction involved consideration of whether "injury became inevitable" while the aircraft was still over water. Illinois District Court permits removal of claims against an aircraft manufacturer based on FSIA jurisdiction over claims against the co-defendant airline. When defending an aviation-related personal injury lawsuit in state court, airlines, aircraft manufacturers and component part manufacturers often will analyze potential jurisdictional bases to support removal to a more favorable federal forum. They may invoke multiple grounds for removal (some more successful than others), including diversity jurisdiction, complete preemption by federal law1 or by a treaty,2 and, for mass disasters, the Multiparty Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act.3 Two recent decisions addressing removal based on admiralty jurisdiction,4 the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA),5 and federal officer jurisdiction illustrate the recurring jurisdictional challenges confronted by aviation defendants.

Cases Remanded - No Admiralty Jurisdiction

In Yang ex rel. Xie v. The Boeing Co.,6 an Illinois District Court addressed whether there was removal jurisdiction in several related personal injury cases arising from the crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 into a seawall at San Francisco International Airport on July 6, 2013. Defendant manufacturer The Boeing Co. (Boeing) removed the case to federal court on the basis of admiralty jurisdiction and federal officer jurisdiction. The plaintiffs successfully moved to have the cases remanded to state court. In April 2014, Boeing's motion for reconsideration was denied.7

Federal admiralty jurisdiction over a tort claim requires a showing "'that the tort either occurred on navigable water or was caused by a vessel on navigable water.'"8 Flight 214 was flying over San Francisco Bay as it approached the airport. The plane's rear landing gear and tail hit the seawall and broke off, causing the plane to skid out of control on the runway. The central issue before the court was whether the tort actually occurred prior to the crash, such that the "injury became inevitable" while the plane was still over water.

The court compared the circumstances to those in In re Air Crash at Belle Harbor, N.Y.,9 and Brown v. Eurocopter S.A.,10 and , cases that considered similar questions concerning...