The accident involving Asiana Airlines Flight 214 led to the filing of lawsuits against Asiana Airlines in various federal district courts, which were subsequently consolidated as a Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") in the Northern District of California. In addition to those lawsuits against the airline, some passengers filed suit against Boeing in Illinois state court alleging product liability and negligence claims relating to the autothrottle, autopilot, and low-speed warning systems of the aircraft. In an effort to have those lawsuits consolidated with the federal multi-district litigation, Boeing removed the state court actions to federal court alleging admiralty and federal officer jurisdiction. Boeing alleged that admiralty jurisdiction existed because the accident was caused by events that occurred over navigable water. Boeing also alleged that federal subject matter jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. § 1442 based on its status as a "person acting under a federal officer" because the FAA has granted Boeing authority to use FAA-approved procedures to conduct analysis and testing required for the issuance of type, production and airworthiness certificates. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois rejected Boeing's arguments and remanded the cases to Illinois state court, thus preventing the consolidation of the cases with the federal MDL proceedings. While remand orders are generally not reviewable on appeal, an exception exists in cases where removal is based federal officer jurisdiction. Because Boeing removed on this basis as well as admiralty jurisdiction, it had the right to appeal the remand order. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals flatly rejected Boeing's argument that it qualified for federal officer jurisdiction. The court, however, went on to review the district court's ruling regarding admiralty jurisdiction, notwithstanding the fact that the remand order based on lack of admiralty jurisdiction would not, on its own, be reviewable. The Seventh Circuit reasoned that it had authority under the statutory exception to review the entire order, and reversed the district court's remand order on the ground that admiralty jurisdiction exists. The Court of Appeals based its finding of admiralty jurisdiction on the allegation by plaintiffs regarding the disengagement of the autothrottle, which occurred 4.5 nautical miles from the seawall (i.e. over navigable waters), and the fact that the trans-ocean flight acted as a substitute for an ocean-going vessel and thus, bore a "significant relationship to a traditional maritime activity." The Court of Appeals instructed the district court to rescind the previously issued remand orders and transfer the cases for consolidated pretrial proceedings in the Northern District of California. Lu Junhong v. The Boeing Company, No. 14-1825 (7th Cir. July 8, 2015).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.