Abdel-Karim v. Egyptair Holding Company et al
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court has considered all of the arguments of the parties. To the extent not specifically addressed above, the remaining arguments are either moot or without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff's motion to remand the case to the New York State Supreme Court, New York County, is denied. The Clerk is directed to close Docket No. 10. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 10/19/2012) (ago)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
────────────────────────────────────
AYMAN ABDEL-KARIM,
Plaintiff,
12 Civ. 5614 (JGK)
- against -
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
EGYPTAIR HOLDING COMPANY a/k/a
EGYPTAIR GROUP; EGYPTAIR AIRLINES;
and ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT,
Defendants.
────────────────────────────────────
JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:
The plaintiff, Ayman Abdel-Karim, brought this action
against EgyptAir Holding Company a/k/a EgyptAir Group (“EgyptAir
Holding”) and EgyptAir Airlines (“EgyptAir Airlines”)
(collectively, the “EgyptAir Defendants”), as well as the Arab
Republic of Egypt, in the New York State Supreme Court, New York
County.
EgyptAir Holding then removed the case to this Court.
The plaintiff now moves to remand the case to state court, and
the EgyptAir Defendants oppose the plaintiff’s motion.
I.
On a motion to remand, “the defendant bears the burden of
demonstrating the propriety of removal.”
Cal. Pub. Employees’
Ret. Sys. v. Worldcom, Inc., 368 F.3d 86, 100 (2d Cir. 2004)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
EgyptAir
Holding removed this case to federal court on several grounds,
including 28 U.S.C. § 1441(d).
§ 1441(d) provides:
“Any civil
action brought in a State court against a foreign state as
defined in section 1603(a) of this title may be removed by the
foreign state to the district court of the United States for the
district and division embracing the place where such action is
pending.”
A “foreign state” includes “an agency or
instrumentality of a foreign state,” defined as any entity
“which is a separate legal person, corporate or otherwise,” and
which “a majority of whose shares or other ownership interest is
owned by a foreign state,” and “which is neither a citizen of a
State of the United States . . . nor created under the laws of
any third country.”
28 U.S.C. § 1603(a)-(b).
II.
At all times relevant to this action, EgyptAir Holding has
been an entity organized and existing under the laws of Egypt
and has been wholly owned by the Arab Republic of Egypt.
(Defs.’ Mem. Opp. Mot. Remand at 2.)
The plaintiff acknowledges
that “EgyptAir Holding is an agency or instrumentality of a
foreign sovereign” (Pl.’s Mem. Supp. Mot. Remand at 5), and does
not dispute that a majority of EgyptAir Holding’s shares is
owned by Egypt.
As a foreign state, EgyptAir Holding has the
right to remove an action against it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1441(d).
A foreign state defendant generally may remove the
2
action to federal court without the consent of the other
defendants.
See 28 U.S.C.
§
1446(b) (2) (A)
(providing that
consent of all defendants is required only when an action is
removed solely under 28 U.S.C.
§
1441(a».
Because EgyptAir
Holding is a "foreign state" as defined in 28 U.S.C.
removal of this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§
§
1441(d) was proper.
Therefore, the plaintiff's motion to remand is denied.
removal was plainly proper under
§
1603, its
Because
1441(d), it is unnecessary to
reach the other asserted grounds for removal.
CONCLUSION
The Court has considered all of the arguments of the
parties.
To the extent not specifically addressed above, the
remaining arguments are either moot or without merit.
For the
foregoing reasons, the plaintiff's motion to remand the case to
the New York State Supreme Court, New York County, is denied.
The Clerk is directed to close Docket No. 10.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
New York, New York
October ~, 2012
Un
3
hn G. Koeltl
tates District Judge
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?