513 F.Supp.3d 462
D.N.J.2021Background
- Plaintiff Hanna Kim, a New Jersey resident, alleges she was burned by hot soup served on Korean Air flight KE086 from JFK to Incheon in 2018.
- Kim purchased her ticket via Delta’s website; Korean Air states it exclusively operated the flight; the airlines are partners in a joint-venture relationship.
- Kim sued Korean Air and Delta in New Jersey state court asserting negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranty; defendants removed the case (diversity and Montreal Convention asserted).
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in New Jersey; they are foreign (Korean Air) or domiciled outside New Jersey (Delta) but are registered as nonresident corporations in New Jersey.
- The court held New Jersey lacks both general and specific jurisdiction over the airlines but concluded EDNY (JFK) has specific jurisdiction and, in the interest of justice under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, transferred the case to the Eastern District of New York.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| General jurisdiction in New Jersey | New Jersey registration and Montreal Convention mean airlines consent to suit in NJ | Airlines are not "essentially at home" in NJ; incorporation/PPB elsewhere | No general jurisdiction; registration does not supplant Daimler rule |
| Specific jurisdiction in NJ based on online ticket purchase | Ticket bought from NJ via Delta website creates jurisdiction | Purchase alone (plaintiff-driven contact) is insufficient; website not NJ-targeted | No specific jurisdiction in NJ; plaintiff cannot be sole link |
| Montreal Convention’s effect on personal jurisdiction | Convention allows suit where passenger resides, conferring jurisdiction in NJ | Convention governs liability but does not supply personal-jurisdiction over particular courts | Convention does not, by itself, confer personal jurisdiction in NJ; it addresses subject-matter jurisdiction/nation-state jurisdiction |
| Transfer to EDNY under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 | If NJ lacks jurisdiction, transfer to EDNY (JFK forum) is appropriate | (Defendants opposed dismissal; argued lack of jurisdiction in NJ) | Transfer granted: EDNY has specific jurisdiction (flight departed JFK; ticket sales and operations connect defendants to NY); transfer in interest of justice to avoid dismissal/time-bar risk |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (U.S. 2014) (limits general jurisdiction to a corporation’s place of incorporation or principal place of business)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (U.S. 2014) (specific-jurisdiction inquiry looks to defendant’s forum contacts, not plaintiff’s location)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (U.S. 2017) (claims must arise out of or relate to defendant’s forum contacts)
- Toys "R" Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446 (3d Cir. 2003) (operation of an interactive website alone does not establish jurisdiction everywhere it can be accessed)
- Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, 732 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2013) (NY § 302(a)(1) ‘‘relatedness’’ inquiry requires a reasonable relationship between forum transaction and claim)
- D'Jamoos ex rel. Estate of Weingeroff v. Pilatus Aircraft Ltd., 566 F.3d 94 (3d Cir. 2009) (transfer under § 1631 appropriate when original court lacks personal jurisdiction)
- Charles Schwab Corp. v. Bank of Am. Corp., 883 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2018) (Second Circuit’s framework for statutory and constitutional bases for NY jurisdiction)
- Chavez v. Dole Food Co., 836 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2016) (discussing general jurisdiction and Daimler in Third Circuit)