Alegria et al v. Lufthansa Aviation Training USA Incorporated
Filing
24
ORDER - That Defendant's Motion (Doc. 11 ) is granted in part to the extent that this case is dismissed on grounds of forum non conveniens. Dismissal of this action is subject to the following conditions: The German court in which the actio n is filed must accept jurisdiction; Defendant must agree to accept service, agree to the jurisdiction of the German court, and make available in Germany allwitnesses and evidence; Defendant must agree that it will satisfy any judgment imposed by t he German court; and Defendant must agree to waive any available statute of limitations defenses in Germany, provided that Plaintiffs file the case in Germany within 90 days of this Order. If any of the above conditions are not met, Plaintiffs may re-file their complaint in this Court. The Clerk shall enter a judgment of dismissal without prejudice and terminate this action. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 02/28/2018. (KAS)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Rafael Joaquin Rodriguez Alegria, et al., )
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Lufthansa Aviation Training USA, Inc., )
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
No. CV-17-00870-PHX-SPL
ORDER
15
Plaintiffs are the personal representatives of Ximena Patricia Alegria Gonzalez,
16
Luis Eduardo Medrano Aragon, and Mohamed Tahrioui, who were among the 150
17
individuals that died while aboard a Germanwings flight that crashed into the French
18
Alps on March 24, 2015. Plaintiffs bring claims against Lufthansa Aviation Training
19
USA, Inc., formerly known as Airline Training Center Arizona, Inc., alleging that it
20
failed to properly screen, train, and/or supervise Andreas Lubitz, the pilot alleged to be
21
responsible for the crash. (Doc. 8.) Lufthansa has moved to dismiss the amended
22
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, for
23
summary judgment or dismissal based on grounds of forum non conveniens. (Doc. 11.)
24
This action will be dismissed the grounds of forum non conveniens and the parties
25
will be directed to litigate this case in Germany. See Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l
26
Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 425 (2007) (a court need not reach other grounds for
27
dismissal prior to dismissing a case based on forum non conveniens). The Court concurs
28
with the decisions issued in Friday v. Airline Training Center Arizona, Inc., CV-16-
1
00859-PHX-DJH, Doc. 32 (D. Ariz. Mar. 27, 2017), Oto v. Airline Training Center
2
Arizona, Inc., CV-16-01027-PHX-DJH, Doc. 50 (D. Ariz. Mar. 27, 2017), and Pineda v.
3
Airline Training Center Arizona, Inc., CV-17-00760-PHX-ROS, Doc. 25 (D. Ariz. Nov.
4
8, 2017), which, in all material respects, involved identical considerations to those
5
presented here. The Court has considered all the relevant factors in this case, including
6
the adequacy of the alternative forum,1 the level of deference accorded to foreign
7
Plaintiffs’ choice of forum,2 and whether the balance of private and public interest factors
8
favor dismissal. See Lueck v. Sundstrand Corp., 236 F.3d 1137, 1142 (9th Cir. 2001)
9
(setting forth the factors for determining whether forum non conveniens dismissal is
10
appropriate) (citing Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 504 (1947)). Under the
11
reasoning set forth in the above sister-decisions, which are adopted and incorporated by
12
reference here, the Court finds that dismissal based on forum non conveniens is
13
warranted. Accordingly,
14
IT IS ORDERED:
15
1. That Defendant’s Motion (Doc. 11) is granted in part to the extent that this
16
case is dismissed on grounds of forum non conveniens;
2. That dismissal of this action is subject to the following conditions:
17
a. The German court in which the action is filed must accept jurisdiction
18
over the case and Defendant;
19
20
b. Defendant must agree to accept service, agree to the jurisdiction of the
21
German court, and make available in Germany, at its expense, all
22
witnesses and evidence that it is required to produce;
c. Defendant must agree that it will satisfy any judgment imposed by the
23
24
25
26
27
1
Although Plaintiffs’ opposition includes a subsection entitled “Germany is Not an
Adequate Forum,” they do not present any actual argument or discussion relevant to that
heading. (See Doc. 20 at 13-14.) Cf. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 255
(1981) (in evaluating whether an alternative forum is inadequate, the court considers
whether there is a danger that the parties will be “deprived of any remedy or treated
unfairly” in that forum).
2
28
Plaintiffs are citizens of Venezuela, Columbia, and Morocco, and have no direct
contacts with Arizona or the United States.
2
1
German court; and
2
d. Defendant must agree to waive any available statute of limitations
3
defenses in Germany, provided that Plaintiffs file the case in Germany
4
within ninety (90) days of this Order.
5
6
7
8
9
3. That if any of the above conditions are not met, Plaintiffs may re-file their
complaint in this Court; and
4. That the Clerk of Court shall enter a judgment of dismissal without prejudice
and terminate this action.
Dated this 28th day of February, 2018.
10
11
Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?