Summary
The Ninth Circuit reversed the Northern District of California’s dismissal of claims against Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft and Lufthansa Group Business Services New York LLC for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court held that California had specific personal jurisdiction over both defendants and that diversity jurisdiction existed after amendment of the removal notice. Judge Milan D. Smith concurred in part and dissented in part, agreeing that subject matter jurisdiction existed but disagreeing that specific personal jurisdiction was proper.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Lufthansa and LGBS were subject to specific personal jurisdiction in California under the Ninth Circuit's three-prong minimum-contacts test.
- Whether the federal courts had subject matter jurisdiction through diversity jurisdiction after amendment of the removal notice under 28 U.S.C. § 1653.
- Whether the district court's dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction should be reversed.
Holdings
- The first prong of the Ninth Circuit's specific-personal-jurisdiction test was satisfied because Lufthansa purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business in California by contracting to carry plaintiffs into California and by regularly operating flights, maintaining offices and employees, and having an agent for service in California. The purposeful-direction test was also satisfied because Lufthansa's conduct extended into California.
- The second prong was satisfied because plaintiffs' contract and tort claims arose out of and related to defendants' California-related activities. The contract for carriage into California was a but-for cause of the claims, and the alleged conduct continued through acts and omissions during the flight to California and in San Francisco.
- The exercise of specific personal jurisdiction was reasonable because defendants failed to present a compelling case that jurisdiction would be unreasonable after the seven reasonableness factors were weighed.
- The federal courts had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(3) because the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 and the parties included diverse United States citizens on both sides, notwithstanding that foreign nationals were also parties on both sides.
Key quotations
“To determine if there is specific personal jurisdiction over a claim against a non-resident defendant, we use the three-prong “minimum contacts” test:” (11)
“This lineup does not add up to a “compelling case” against jurisdiction where, as here, many of the factors that weigh against jurisdiction do so only slightly.” (20)
“That there are foreign nationals on both sides of the case—Roe as a plaintiff, Lufthansa as a defendant—does not defeat diversity under Section (a)(3), because these foreign nationals are additional parties.” (21)
Factual background
John Doe, a California citizen, and Robert Roe, a Saudi Arabian citizen, are a married same-sex couple who spent substantial time living together in Saudi Arabia. In 2021, they booked Lufthansa tickets from Saudi Arabia to San Francisco and disclosed their marital status to Lufthansa personnel to satisfy United States entry requirements. Plaintiffs alleged that Lufthansa personnel publicly disclosed and transmitted their marital information, failed to protect it, and made additional assurances and omissions during the trip and after their arrival in San Francisco, causing harms connected to Saudi governmental surveillance and their inability to return to Saudi Arabia.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs sued Lufthansa and LGBS in California state court, asserting breach of contract and tort claims arising from the alleged disclosure of their marital status. Defendants removed the action to federal court. The district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit initially ordered a limited remand concerning whether the removal notice could be amended under 28 U.S.C. § 1653 to correct LGBS's citizenship. After the district court allowed the amendment, the Ninth Circuit held that both personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction existed, reversed the dismissal, and remanded for further proceedings.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings after reversal of the dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.