Abdel-Karim v. EgyptAir Airlines
116 F. Supp. 3d 389
| S.D.N.Y. | 2015Background
- Abdel-Karim flew JFK to Cairo with weapon-like items in checked baggage; he was detained/arrested in Cairo and later released after Egyptian charges were dismissed.
- Plaintiff filed suit in NY state court; defendants removed to federal court on diversity and FSIA grounds, alleging EHC as a foreign state instrumentality.
- EgyptAir (airline) and EHC seek summary judgment; EHC argues lack of personal jurisdiction; ADA preemption also invoked.
- Facts show EgyptAir is a US-registered carrier operating JFK–Cairo, owned by EHC, with EHC wholly owned by the Arab Republic of Egypt; EHC’s contacts with NY are contested.
- Plaintiff asserts thirteen state-law claims including breach of contract, negligence, misrepresentation, IIED, NIED, and false imprisonment; later narrowed as the case progressed.
- Court grants summary judgment for the defendants, ruling EHC enjoys FSIA immunity; ADA preemption precludes most state-law claims, leaving only Count One (breach of contract) potentially viable, which is ultimately resolved in favor of defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EHC is subject to personal jurisdiction under FSIA. | EHC has NY contacts; acts through EgyptAir; seconded employees in NY/US; challenged corporate separateness. | EgyptAir and EHC are separate entities; no waiver or US-based commercial activity by EHC; immunity applies. | EHC immune under FSIA; no subject-matter jurisdiction over EHC. |
| Whether ADA preempts plaintiff's state-law claims against EgyptAir. | ADA does not blanket-preempt all claims; contract-based claims may survive; other tort claims may proceed. | ADA preempts most state-law claims arising from airline services; only contracts based on privately ordered obligations survive. | All non-contract claims preempted; Count One (breach of contract) may survive. |
| Whether the contract claim (Count One) is viable under NY law. | EgyptAir breached its Conditions of Carriage and internal manuals by mishandling the special items. | Contracts’ terms grant discretion; manuals not incorporated; no breach shown. | Contract claim dismissed on the merits; no breach shown under NY contract law. |
| Whether any remaining non-preempted or preempted state-law claims survive under NY law. | Potential negligence, misrepresentation, IIED, NIED, false imprisonment claims should proceed. | Evidence fails to show negligence or misrepresentation; claims are not reasonably related to airline service or are inadequately supported. | All remaining claims either preempted or meritless; dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg, 134 S. Ct. 1422 (2014) (ADA preempts some state-law claims but not all; contract claims may survive when privately ordered)
- American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219 (1995) (breach of contract not preempted when based on privately ordered obligations)
- First Nat. City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 462 U.S. 611 (1983) (Bancec presumption of independent status for instrumentalities)
- Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc., 504 U.S. 607 (1992) (commercial activity insight under FSIA and state action boundaries)
- Rombom v. United Air Lines, Inc., 867 F. Supp. 214 (1994) (Sotomayor three-part test for preemption of airline-service related claims)
- Weiss v. El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd., 471 F. Supp. 2d 356 (2006) (ADA preemption analysis of airline-baggage related claims)
- Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., LP, 22 F.3d 1219 (1994) (summary judgment standard and issue-finding)
- Curley v. AMR Corp., 153 F.3d 5 (1998) (duty of care owed by common carriers to passengers)
- Stagl v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 52 F.3d 463 (1995) (airline duty to maintain safety in areas under carrier control)