Abuhindi v. Turkish Airlines et al

Filing 18

ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT GULF AIR'S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND re 1 , 8 - Signed by JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON on 5/6/2022. Abuhindi may have until May 27, 2022 to file an amended complaint that complies with the instructions herein. Should Abuhindi fail to do so, he is forewarned that Gulf Air will be dismissed as a defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction without further notice. (eta)COURT'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Maitham Abuhindi has been served by First Class Mail to the address of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) on May 6, 2022. Registered Participants of CM/ECF received the document electronically to the email addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF).

Case 1:22-cv-00034-DKW-RT Document 18 Filed 05/06/22 Page 1 of 8

PageID #: 220

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I
MAITHAM ABUHINDI,
Plaintiff,
v.
TURKISH AIRLINES,
GULF AIR,

Case No. 22-cv-00034-DKW-KJM
ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART
DEFENDANT GULF AIR’S
MOTION TO DISMISS, AND (2)
DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

Defendants.

Defendant Gulf Air moves to dismiss Plaintiff Maitham Abuhindi’s pro se
Complaint on various grounds, including lack of personal jurisdiction. Because it
is clear from the Complaint that personal jurisdiction over Gulf Air has not been
alleged, the Court agrees that the Complaint should be dismissed on that ground.
However, because Abuhindi is proceeding pro se, the Court will allow leave to
amend the Complaint. Therefore, as more fully explained below, the motion to
dismiss, Dkt. No. 8, is GRANTED IN PART.
I.

Factual Background
Abuhindi alleges as follows in the Complaint, Dkt. No. 1. On March 25,

2020, Abuhindi booked two airplane tickets: one from Los Angeles to Istanbul via
Turkish Airlines; and one from Istanbul to Bahrain also via Turkish Airlines, but

Case 1:22-cv-00034-DKW-RT Document 18 Filed 05/06/22 Page 2 of 8

PageID #: 221

operated by Gulf Air. Id. at 6.1 According to Abuhindi, the first flight was “safely
and appropriately operated.” The second flight, scheduled for March 27, 2020,
however, “was canceled without informing me as a passenger.” Abuhindi tried to
contact Turkish Airlines about the cancellation, but “they didn’t care and they didn’t
try to solve this issue, they just ignored” Abuhindi. Abuhindi then contacted Gulf
Air. Gulf Air said that, although the March 27, 2020 flight had been cancelled, a
new flight was scheduled for March 28, 2020. That flight too, though, was
cancelled. Abuhindi contacted Gulf Air again, and it said there would be another
flight on March 29, 2020. Id. That flight was also cancelled, though, without
informing Abuhindi. Id. at 6-7.2 Abuhindi was later told by the Bahraini Embassy
in Istanbul that a flight was scheduled for April 7, 2020. Gulf Air, however, did not
operate this flight because there were too few passengers.
Abuhindi alleges that, as a result of the flight cancellations, he “had no choice
but to stay in Istanbul….” Id. Doing so cost him “a lot of money and resulted in
social and emotional disturbances.” Id. at 8. In addition, because Abuhindi
received no resolution of the issues with his flight, he “had to book a private jet” to
Bahrain, which cost $29,484.68. Id.
1

Because the page numbers of the Complaint are not consecutively paginated, the Court cites to the
page numbers created by CM/ECF in the top right corner of the document, i.e., “Page 6 of 9.”
2
Despite these representations by Gulf Air, Abuhindi alleges that Gulf Air’s website reflected
flights from Istanbul to Bahrain on each of the days--March 27 through March 29, 2020—that he
was told the flights had been cancelled. Dkt. No. 1 at 6-7.

2

Case 1:22-cv-00034-DKW-RT Document 18 Filed 05/06/22 Page 3 of 8

PageID #: 222

The Complaint further appears to allege that Turkish Airlines is incorporated
in California and has a principal place of business in Turkey. Id. at 4. Gulf Air,
meanwhile, is alleged to be incorporated in New York with a principal place of
business in Bahrain. Id. at 5.
II.

Procedural Background
On January 21, 2022, Abuhindi filed the Complaint against Defendants

Turkish Airlines and Gulf Air (collectively, Defendants). In the Complaint,
although a cause of action is not specifically identified, Abuhindi requests $10
million from each Defendant.
On February 23, 2022, Gulf Air filed the instant motion to dismiss along with
various exhibits, including a declaration from its Acting Chief Executive Officer
(Declaration). Dkt. No. 8. The motion to dismiss was scheduled for hearing on
April 29, 2022, which, pursuant to Local Rule 7.2, meant that an opposition to the
same was due on or before April 8, 2022. Dkt. No. 11. No response was filed by
that deadline, and Gulf Air appears to have declined to file an optional reply.
Therefore, on April 18, 2022, the Court vacated the April 29, 2022 hearing and took
the motion to dismiss under advisement. Dkt. No. 15.
On April 28, 2022, however, Abuhindi filed two letters with the Court. The
first purported to provide “support documents” for this case. Dkt. No. 16. The

3

Case 1:22-cv-00034-DKW-RT Document 18 Filed 05/06/22 Page 4 of 8

PageID #: 223

second contained a tardy “opposition” to the motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 17.3
This Order now follows.4
III.

Legal Standards
1.

Personal Jurisdiction

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), a defendant may move
for dismissal due to a lack of personal jurisdiction. When a defendant does so, “the
plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction is proper.” Mavrix Photo,
Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc., 647 F.3d 1218, 1223 (9th Cir. 2011). As in this
case, when an evidentiary hearing is not held, while the plaintiff cannot rest on the
allegations of its complaint, uncontroverted allegations may be taken as true.
Further, a court cannot take as true allegations that are contradicted by affidavit, but
factual disputes are to be resolved in the plaintiff’s favor. Id.
2.

Pro Se Status

Because Abuhindi is proceeding pro se, the Court liberally construes his
filings. Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987). With that in mind,
“[u]nless it is absolutely clear that no amendment can cure the defect . . . a pro se
litigant is entitled to notice of the complaint’s deficiencies and an opportunity to

3

The second letter and opposition contain no explanation for why Abuhindi did not file the same
by the April 8, 2022 deadline. See generally Dkt. No. 17. Nonetheless, because the second letter
does nothing to alter the analysis herein, the Court opts not to strike the same from the record.
4
As of the date of this Order, although Abuhindi purports to have served summons on Turkish
Airlines (Dkt. No. 10), Turkish Airlines has not appeared in this case.
4

Case 1:22-cv-00034-DKW-RT Document 18 Filed 05/06/22 Page 5 of 8

PageID #: 224

amend prior to dismissal of the action.” Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 248
(9th Cir. 1995). A court may, however, deny leave to amend due to undue delay,
failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, or where further
amendment would be futile. E.g., Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d 981, 990 (9th Cir.
2009); Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Publ’g, 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008).
IV.

Discussion
Gulf Air argues that this case should be dismissed because: (1) there is a lack

of subject matter jurisdiction; (2) there is a lack of personal jurisdiction; (3) venue is
improper; (4) process and service of process were insufficient; and (5) the
Complaint fails to state a claim for relief.
At this stage of proceedings and in light of Abuhindi’s pro se status, the Court
finds Gulf Air’s argument with respect to personal jurisdiction to be the most clear
and direct deficiency with respect to the allegations in the Complaint. Therefore,
the Court addresses that argument alone in this Order.5
In the motion to dismiss, Gulf Air asserts that it does not have a physical
presence in Hawai‘i, does not conduct operations in Hawai‘i, and is headquartered in
Bahrain. Dkt. No. 8 at 18. Gulf Air argues, as a result, due process would be
offended if this Court exercised personal jurisdiction over it. Id. at 18-19. As
more fully discussed below, the Court agrees.
5

By doing so, nothing herein should be construed as assessing the merits of Gulf Air’s other
arguments.
5

Case 1:22-cv-00034-DKW-RT Document 18 Filed 05/06/22 Page 6 of 8

PageID #: 225

The U.S. Supreme Court has explained that personal jurisdiction encompasses
two distinct concepts: (1) general personal jurisdiction; and (2) specific personal
jurisdiction. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., San Francisco
Cty., 137 S.Ct. 1773, 1779-80 (2017). Here, the Complaint alleges neither.
First, the “paradigm” forums for the exercise of general personal jurisdiction
over a corporation are its place of incorporation and principal place of business.
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 924 (2011).
Here, the Complaint appears to allege that Gulf Air is incorporated in New York and
has a principal place of business in Bahrain. 6 Neither, in other words, is Hawai‘i.
Therefore, in light of these alleged facts, and Abuhindi’s failure to provide any other
reason why the Court should look to Hawai‘i as Gulf Air’s “home,” the Court finds
that there is no general personal jurisdiction over Gulf Air here. See id.
Second, in order to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant,
the defendant “must purposefully direct his activities or consummate some
transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or perform some act by which he
purposefully avails himself” of the forum. Freestream Aircraft (Bermuda) Ltd. v.
Aero Law Group, 905 F.3d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 2018). Additionally, “the claim must
be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant’s forum-related activities[.]”

6

In the Declaration, Gulf Air asserts that it is incorporated in Bahrain. Dkt. No. 8-1 at ¶ 3.
Whatever the case, it makes no difference to the Court’s analysis, given that neither Bahrain nor
New York is Hawai‘i.
6

Case 1:22-cv-00034-DKW-RT Document 18 Filed 05/06/22 Page 7 of 8

PageID #: 226

Finally, “the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial
justice, i.e., it must be reasonable.” Id.
Here, the Complaint does not allege any Hawai‘i-related activities of any
type.7 Rather, all of the alleged activities in this case took place in Istanbul,
Bahrain, or wherever it is that Turkish Airlines and/or Gulf Air made the decisions
to cancel Abuhindi’s flights. Moreover, even if Abuhindi had purchased his plane
tickets in Hawai‘i−the only possible activity that may have occurred in this forum−it
would not change the analysis because Abuhindi does not allege that any claims he
may bring arise out of or relate to the purchase of those tickets. Instead, his claims,
if any, arise out of the alleged cancellation of his flight from Istanbul to
Bahrain−something that is entirely unrelated to the underlying purchase of the
tickets. In addition, Abuhindi does not even allege that he purchased the tickets
from Gulf Air; rather, he alleges that he purchased them via Turkish Airlines. See
Freestream Aircraft, 905 F.3d at 603 (explaining that a defendant must purposefully
direct its activities at the forum). In this light, the Complaint fails to establish
specific personal jurisdiction over Gulf Air.
With neither basis for exercising personal jurisdiction over Gulf Air having
been met, the motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 8) is GRANTED on that ground.

7

In the second letter, Abuhindi states that he bought both of the tickets for his original flights in
Hawai‘i. Dkt. No. 17 at 2. As discussed below, even if this was true and had been alleged in the
Complaint, which it was not, it would make no difference to the Court’s analysis.
7

Case 1:22-cv-00034-DKW-RT Document 18 Filed 05/06/22 Page 8 of 8

PageID #: 227

However, because it is not impossible for Abuhindi to correct this deficiency, the
Court will allow leave to amend. Should Abuhindi elect to file an amended
complaint, he must allege a basis for this Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over
Gulf Air that takes into account the explanations herein about when it is proper to
exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant.
Abuhindi may have until May 27, 2022 to file an amended complaint that
complies with the instructions herein. Should Abuhindi fail to do so, he is
forewarned that Gulf Air will be dismissed as a defendant for lack of personal
jurisdiction without further notice.
V.

Conclusion
To the extent set forth herein, the motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 8, is

GRANTED IN PART.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 6, 2022 at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.

D
~

" i"'"-..,jn : """""'
"

- --.._

United States District Judg,e

8