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)

Download PDF
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?