AYYASH v. AMERICAN AIRLINES INC.
1:24-cv-03434
| D.D.C. | Aug 5, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs, relatives of Captain Mohannad Alhindi, who died of a heart attack while working as a pilot in Dhaka, Bangladesh, sued Gulf Air B.S.C. and American Airlines Inc., alleging their negligence and safety violations caused his death.
- Plaintiffs claimed Gulf Air had a long history of safety problems and that both defendants failed to ensure appropriate crew health and safety, including regulatory compliance and adequate medical care.
- Incidents cited by plaintiffs included events dating back to the 1980s, previous Gulf Air crashes, and alleged misrepresentation of safety records to U.S. authorities.
- Plaintiffs also alleged American Airlines breached regulatory duties under codeshare agreements by certifying Gulf Air’s compliance and allegedly failing to audit its operations properly.
- The suit was brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; both defendants filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient claim pleadings, among other grounds.
- Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, responded with numerous motions, including for discovery and to strike defendants' filings, all of which were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over Gulf Air | Gulf Air transacted substantial business in D.C. | Gulf Air is incorporated and headquartered in Bahrain, with no D.C. ties | No personal jurisdiction; motion to dismiss granted |
| Personal jurisdiction over American | American’s regulatory actions and audits connect to D.C. via FAA | American is incorporated in Delaware, headquartered in Texas; acts outside D.C. | No personal jurisdiction; motion to dismiss granted |
| Sufficiency of pleadings (Rule 8) | Alleged direct causation between Defendants’ conduct and death | Complaint is conclusory, speculative, lacks factual support | Complaint fails under Rule 8; motion granted |
| Jurisdictional discovery | Discovery may show D.C. connections via federal regulators | No facts discovery could change the jurisdictional analysis | Discovery denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (clarifies pleading standards under Rule 8 and plausibility standard)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (distinguishes general and specific personal jurisdiction)
- Crane v. N.Y. Zoological Soc’y, 894 F.2d 454 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (sets out plaintiff’s burden to establish facts for jurisdiction)
- Second Amendment Foundation v. U.S. Conference of Mayors, 274 F.3d 521 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (details need for specific acts connecting defendant to forum for jurisdiction)