Rahman et al v. General Electric Corporation et al

Filing 75

ORDER granting Motion for Reconsideration 72 . Defendants are directed to file a memorandum in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion to amend, if any, by May 20, 2022. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 5/6/2022. (Walker, M.)

Case 3:20-cv-01524-JBA Document 75 Filed 05/06/22 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
ADIL RAHMAN, Personal Representative of the
heirs of FAZAL RAHMAAN, deceased and WAHIDA Civil No. 20cv1524 (JBA)
FAZAL RAHMAAN, deceased, YASEEN ABDUL
FATTAH EL-AAYI and EZZAT ELAAYI, Co-Personal May 6, 2022
Representatives of the heirs of ABDUL FATTAH
ELAAYI, deceased, ABDUL REHMAN POLANI,
Personal Representative of the heirs of ABDUL
RAHIM ZAIN POLANI, deceased, SARAH ABDUL
RAHIM POLANI, deceased, MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM
POLANI, deceased, MUHAMMAD USMAN POLANI,
deceased, MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE POLANI,
deceased, AMIN SATTAR, Personal Representative
of the heirs of MOHAMMED SHABBIR, deceased,
and AZMAT YAR KHAN, Personal Representatives
of the heirs of MUHAMMAD YAR KHAN, deceased,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GENERAL ELECTRIC CORPORATION; GE CAPITAL
AVIATION SERVICES, LIMITED; and CELESTIAL
AVIATION TRADING 34 LIMITED,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Plaintiffs move for reconsideration [Doc. # 72] of the Court’s February 24, 2022 order
[Doc. # 71] denying their motions to amend the Complaint [Docs. ## 66, 67]. Defendant,
General Electric Corporation, did not respond to Plaintiffs’ motion.
The Federal Rules require the movant to set “forth concisely the matters or
controlling decisions which [the movant] believes the Court overlooked in the initial decision
or order.” D. Conn. Loc. Civ. R. 7(c). The Second Circuit has explained that “[t]he major
grounds justifying reconsideration are ‘an intervening change of controlling law, the

Case 3:20-cv-01524-JBA Document 75 Filed 05/06/22 Page 2 of 3

availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest
injustice.’” Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat’l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992)
(quoting 18B C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 4478).
The Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to amend, stating: Plaintiffs’ “Motions to Amend
[Doc. ## 66, 67] are denied as moot in light of the Court’s Ruling [Doc. # 69] granting
Defendant GE Capital Aviation Services, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss.” Plaintiffs argue that this
language misstates the legal effect of the ruling on the motion to dismiss because it was
premised on the Court’s lack of personal jurisdiction over two defendants—GE Capital
Aviation Services, Ltd. and Celestial Aviation Trading 34 Ltd. (Pls.’ Mot. at 2-3.) Plaintiffs
argue, however, that GE Capital Aviation Services, LLC was not a party to the lawsuit at the
time of the Court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss and, in any event, there is no dispute that
the Court would have personal jurisdiction over GE Capital Aviation Services, LLC, a
Connecticut entity. (Id.)
The Court finds Plaintiffs’ argument persuasive. Plaintiffs’ motions to amend the
Complaint requested leave to add a Connecticut entity, GE Capital Aviation Services, LLC (as
well as three proposed individual defendants who are residents of Connecticut) to the
Complaint. (See, e.g., Mot. to Amend [Doc. # 66] at 1-2.) The Court granted GE Capital Aviation
Services, Ltd. and Celestial Aviation Trading 34 Ltd.’s motion to dismiss because it lacks
personal jurisdiction over those defendants, but that determination does not preclude the
addition of GE Capital Aviation Services, LLC, or the proposed individual defendants given
that GE Capital Aviation Services, LLC is a Connecticut entity and the proposed individual
defendants are also Connecticut residents. Thus, the Court will reconsider the merits of
Plaintiffs’ motions to amend the Complaint.
In their motions to amend the Complaint, Plaintiffs argued that they initially brought
suit against GE Capital Aviation Services, LLC. (See Mot. to Amend [Doc. # 66] at 2.) However,

2

Case 3:20-cv-01524-JBA Document 75 Filed 05/06/22 Page 3 of 3

Plaintiffs claimed that they voluntarily dismissed that action based upon GE Capital Aviation
Services, LLC’s representation that GE Capital Aviation Services, Ltd. and Celestial Aviation
Trading 34 Ltd. were the proper defendants. (Id.) Plaintiffs subsequently moved to amend
the Complaint to add GE Capital Aviation Services, LLC after learning through discovery that
entity’s role in the alleged cause of action. (Id.) Defendants did not consent to the motions
and at oral argument on the motion to dismiss contended that the motions should be denied
because, as they viewed the facts, GE Capital Aviation Services, LLC played no role in the
underlying cause of action and because these proposed defendants are statutorily immune
from liability under 49 U.S.C. § 44112. (Tr. [Doc. # 73] at 4:15-23.)
Because Defendants noted their opposition to Plaintiffs’ motions during oral
argument but did not have an opportunity to file a written opposition to the motion to amend
the Complaint prior to the Court’s order denying it, the Court directs Defendants to file a
memorandum detailing its opposition, if any, by May 20, 2022.
For the forgoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. # 72] is
GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________________/s/___________________
Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 6th day of May 2022

3