Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in Willis Towers Watson Plc x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
Airplane | Massachusetts
Order On Report and Recommendations Order on Motion for Leave to File Document Order on Motion to Dismiss
Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint in Massachusetts state court, after which his case was removed to this court. Notice of Removal [ 1 ]. Willis Towers Watson France (“WTW France”) (currently appearing only as an “interested party”) moved to dismiss for “insufficiency of process and insufficiency of service of process.” Mot. to Dismiss by WTW France 1 [ 8 ]. Defendants Delta Air Lines and Societe Air France (“Delta” and “Air France”) moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Defs. Delta and Air France’s Mot. to Dismiss Pl.’s Compl. 1 [ 12 ].On WTW France’s Motion to Dismiss [ 8 ], the Magistrate Judge recommended denying the motion to dismiss, quashing the attempt to serve WTW Paris, and allowing Plaintiff to amend the complaint to name the proper party and serve WTW France in accordance with Rule 4(f) and the Hague Service Convention. R&R on Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 8] [ 32 ]. No objections have been filed, and following review by this court, the Report and Recommendation [ 32 ] is ADOPTED in full and WTW France’s Motion to Dismiss [ 8 ] is DENIED. Plaintiff’s attempt to serve WTW Paris (rather than WTW France) is quashed, and Plaintiff must serve WTW France in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(f) and the Hague Service Convention with a complaint that names the proper party. On Delta and Air France’s Motion to Dismiss [ 12 ], the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing Plaintiff’s claim under Article 17 of the Montreal Convention for insufficient pleading and denying the motion as to all other claims. R&R on Delta and Air France’s Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 12] 7, 9 [ 33 ]. Defendants Delta and Air France filed Objections [ 34 ], to which Plaintiff has filed a Reply [ 37 ]. Plaintiff has now moved to file a second amended complaint. Pl.’s Mot. for Leave to File a Second Am. Compl. [ 38 ]. His proposed amended complaint, as attached to his motion, identifies WTW France as a Defendant and provides more specific context for Plaintiff’s claims. See Pl.’s Proposed Second Am. Compl. [[38-1]]. Plaintiff’s motion to amend comes to this case far later than is ideal. But given Plaintiff’s pro se status and the evident benefit of addressing the pleading deficiencies, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint [ 38 ] is GRANTED. Upon Plaintiff’s filing of his proposed amended complaint, Defendants Delta and Air France’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint [ 12 ] will be denied without prejudice as moot. (MAP)
On WTW France’s Motion to Dismiss [ 8 ], the Magistrate Judge recommended denying the motion to dismiss, quashing the attempt to serve WTW Paris, and allowing Plaintiff to amend the complaint to name the proper party and serve WTW France in accordance with Rule 4(f) and the Hague Service Convention. R&R on Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 8] [ 32 ]. No objections have been filed, and following review by this court, the Report and Recommendation [ 32 ] is ADOPTED in full and WTW France’s Motion to Dismiss [ 8 ] is DENIED. Plaintiff’s attempt to serve WTW Paris (rather than WTW France) is quashed, and Plaintiff must serve WTW France in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(f) and the Hague Service Convention with a complaint that names the proper party.
On Delta and Air France’s Motion to Dismiss [ 12 ], the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing Plaintiff’s claim under Article 17 of the Montreal Convention for insufficient pleading and denying the motion as to all other claims. R&R on Delta and Air France’s Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 12] 7, 9 [ 33 ]. Defendants Delta and Air France filed Objections [ 34 ], to which Plaintiff has filed a Reply [ 37 ].
Plaintiff has now moved to file a second amended complaint. Pl.’s Mot. for Leave to File a Second Am. Compl. [ 38 ]. His proposed amended complaint, as attached to his motion, identifies WTW France as a Defendant and provides more specific context for Plaintiff’s claims. See Pl.’s Proposed Second Am. Compl. [[38-1]].
Plaintiff’s motion to amend comes to this case far later than is ideal. But given Plaintiff’s pro se status and the evident benefit of addressing the pleading deficiencies, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint [ 38 ] is GRANTED.
Upon Plaintiff’s filing of his proposed amended complaint, Defendants Delta and Air France’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint [ 12 ] will be denied without prejudice as moot.
Amend
First MOTION to Amend 37 Opposition to Motion, by Philibert Kongtcheu. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Proposed Amended Complaint, # 2 Exhibit A1: Air France General conditions of carriage)(Kongtcheu, Philibert)
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
First Name
Last Name
Job Title
PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.
Password (at least 8 characters required)
Confirm Password
Law360 may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy.