Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitdefendanttrialjury trial
defendantjurisdictionstatuteappeal

Related Cases

Kluger v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2018 WL 4145902
View Case »
Ogden v. Groves, 241 So.2d 756
View Case »
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 164 L.Ed.2d 689, 87 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,353, 74 USLW 4257, 152 Lab.Cas. P 60,203, 24 IER Cases 737, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4453, 2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6495, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 203
View Case »
Lucas v. Ludwig, 313 So.2d 12
View Case »
ESG Capital Partners, LP v. Stratos, 828 F.3d 1023, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 99,227, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7335, 2016 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6973
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Air Crash Disaster Near Roselawn, Ind. on Oct. 31, 1994, 96 F.3d 932, 65 USLW 2230

Facts

On October 31, 1994, American Eagle Flight 4184 crashed near Roselawn, Indiana, killing sixty-eight people due to severe icing problems. Following the crash, numerous lawsuits were filed, including cases against ATR, the manufacturer of the aircraft involved. ATR, which is owned equally by French and Italian companies, sought to remove these cases from state court to federal court, claiming it was a foreign state under the FSIA.

Sixty-eight people were killed on October 31, 1994, when American Eagle Flight 4184 from Indianapolis to Chicago developed severe icing problems and crashed near Roselawn, Indiana.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether ATR qualified as a 'foreign state' under the FSIA and whether it could remove the entire case to federal court, including claims against non-foreign state defendants.

The question central to this appeal is the one we necessarily address first—whether federal subject matter jurisdiction exists in these cases.

Rule

The FSIA defines a 'foreign state' to include entities majority-owned by foreign governments, and it allows for the removal of civil actions against foreign states from state courts to federal courts.

The FSIA is the only United States statute providing jurisdiction over suits against foreign states or their instrumentalities.

Analysis

The court analyzed ATR's ownership structure, concluding that the ownership interests of the French and Italian governments could be pooled to meet the majority ownership requirement under the FSIA. It determined that ATR's indirect ownership through commercial companies did not preclude it from being classified as an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state. The court also found that the FSIA's removal provision allowed ATR to remove the entire case, not just claims directly against it.

The district court concluded that the ownership interests of more than one foreign government may be added together ('pooled'), and that indirect ('tiered') foreign governmental ownership interests held through intermediary entities may be considered in determining whether an entity satisfies the ownership requirement necessary for 'foreign state' status under 28 U.S.C. § 1603.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's ruling, allowing the cases to remain in federal court and upholding the constitutionality of the FSIA's provisions regarding jury trials.

The court found that § 1441(d) and its legislative history make 'quite plain the Congressional intent that all claims, not just those against the foreign state, would be removed' under § 1441(d).

Who won?

The prevailing party was Avions de Transport Regional (ATR), as the court upheld its right to remove the cases to federal court and affirmed the constitutionality of the FSIA.

The district court ruled that defendant Avions de Transport Regional, G.I.E. ('ATR'), a one-half French, one-half Italian aircraft manufacturer, which was named as a defendant or third-party defendant in all of the suits, could remove the cases to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(d) because ATR is a 'foreign state' under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ('FSIA').

You must be