Lensky v. Turkish Airlines, Inc.
1:20-cv-04978
S.D.N.Y.Jul 28, 2024Background
- Plaintiffs, New York residents, bought roundtrip plane tickets from Turkish airline THY while in New York, with layovers in Istanbul, Turkey.
- Plaintiffs were allegedly assaulted by Turkish police in the Istanbul airport, after an altercation with a THY gate agent and at the agent's behest.
- Plaintiffs sued THY in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging THY should be liable for the assault.
- THY moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing its U.S. contacts were too attenuated.
- The District Court initially held there was no personal jurisdiction, but the Second Circuit remanded, instructing the court to consider general or specific jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether U.S. court has general jurisdiction over THY under Rule 4(k)(2) | THY’s business in the U.S. is continuous and systematic, warranting general jurisdiction | Only "essentially at home" standard applies; ties to U.S. are too attenuated | Rule 4(k)(2) confers general jurisdiction under the “continuous and systematic” contacts standard |
| Applicability of “continuous and systematic” vs. “essentially at home” standard | "Continuous and systematic" from Second Circuit precedent is correct test | "Essentially at home" from Daimler should apply | Second Circuit precedent ("continuous and systematic") governs; applies that standard |
| Reasonableness of exercising jurisdiction | Jurisdiction is reasonable due to THY’s major presence in U.S. and plaintiffs’ residence | Did not argue unreasonableness | Exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable |
| Whether THY’s Montreal Convention argument can be considered on remand | Argument raised too late in reply briefing, outside Second Circuit mandate | Raises Montreal Convention applicability in reply | Court disregards the Montreal Convention argument as procedurally improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (general jurisdiction requires defendant to be “essentially at home” in the forum)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (distinguishes specific and general jurisdiction)
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts test for due process)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (reasonableness factors for personal jurisdiction)
- Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (reasonableness analysis for asserting jurisdiction)