Byanjankar v. US Bangla Airlines Limited
1:20-cv-01316
E.D.N.YNov 18, 2021Background
- March 12, 2018: US‑Bangla Airlines Flight BS211 crashed on landing in Kathmandu; 51 of 71 aboard died.
- Plaintiffs are a crash survivor and representatives of multiple victims’ estates asserting wrongful death, personal injury, and carrier‑liability claims under the international conventions.
- Defendant is US‑Bangla Airlines, organized and principally based in Dhaka, Bangladesh.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5) (insufficient service) and 12(b)(2) (lack of personal jurisdiction).
- Plaintiffs sought discovery and moved to compel a deposition of the airline’s Managing Director; the court deferred discovery pending jurisdictional resolution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of service (Rule 12(b)(5)) | Service was effected by overnight mail to an alleged Queens office and by attempted foreign service methods | Mail service on an LLC in U.S. and methods used for service abroad were improper under FRCP and New York law; Bangladesh is not a Hague signatory and Plaintiffs did not use prescribed foreign‑service procedures | Dismissal for insufficient service granted: service did not comply with FRCP 4(h) or 4(f) or NY CPLR 311‑a; no court‑ordered alternative method had been authorized |
| Personal jurisdiction (Rule 12(b)(2)) | Alleged senior‑level management and decisionmaking occurred in New York (Queens office, advertising, related entities) supporting general jurisdiction | Airline is organized and headquartered in Bangladesh; claimed New York contacts are unsupported or relate to dissolved/related entities and insufficient for general jurisdiction | Dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction granted: Plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie showing that the airline is "at home" in New York or has continuous and systematic contacts justifying general jurisdiction |
| Motion to compel deposition | Plaintiffs sought oral deposition of Managing Director as key witness | Defendant opposed; argued dismissal appropriate | Motion to compel denied as moot because case was dismissed for lack of service and jurisdiction; discovery was unnecessary per Jazini |
Key Cases Cited
- Gamm v. Sanderson Farms, Inc., 944 F.3d 455 (2d Cir. 2019) (court accepts complaint facts and draws inferences for plaintiff at motion stage)
- Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson‑Ceco Corp., 84 F.3d 560 (2d Cir. 1996) (plaintiff bears burden to establish personal jurisdiction)
- Robinson v. Overseas Military Sales Corp., 21 F.3d 502 (2d Cir. 1994) (pleadings viewed favorably to plaintiff pre‑discovery)
- Bank Brussels Lambert v. Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez, 171 F.3d 779 (2d Cir. 1999) (prima facie showing of jurisdiction may be made before discovery)
- Jazini v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., 148 F.3d 181 (2d Cir. 1998) (discovery properly denied where plaintiffs fail to establish personal jurisdiction over foreign defendant)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (paradigm forums for general jurisdiction are place of incorporation and principal place of business)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Ops., S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (general jurisdiction requires contacts so continuous and systematic as to render a defendant at home)
- Gucci Am., Inc. v. Weixing Li, 768 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2014) (existence of a branch office in forum state alone may be insufficient to establish general jurisdiction)
- A.W.L.I. Group, Inc. v. Amber Freight Shipping Lines, 828 F. Supp. 2d 557 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (advertising directed at forum residents alone does not establish general jurisdiction without other sustained business activity)