Ugwu v. United Airlines Inc

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
TOBECS RICHARDS UGWU,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:25-CV-0933-K
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant United Airlines, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Brief in Support
(the “Motion”) (Doc. No. 25). 	Plaintiff Tobecs Richards Ugwu filed his Response in
Opposition to Defendant’s Second Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
(the “Response”) (Doc. No. 27). Defendant filed a Reply Brief in Support of its Motion
(the “Reply”) (Doc. No. 28). 	The Court has carefully considered the Motion, the
Response, and the Reply, the applicable law, and the relevant portions of the record.
Because Plaintiff failed to make the required prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction
over non-resident Defendant, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction. 	Further, because Plaintiff does not seek leave to amend, the
Court DISMISS this case without prejudice.
Case 3:25-cv-00933-K Document 29 Filed 03/16/26 Page 1 of 14 PageID <pageID>

2
I. 	Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff Tobecs Richards Ugwu (“Plaintiff’), a resident of Texas, alleges he
sustained injuries on a flight operated by Defendant United Airlines, Inc. (“Defendant”
or “United”) on January 24, 2025. 	Doc. No. 21 at 1, 3. 	(All record citations herein
are to the CM/ECF-assigned page number, not the document page number.) While at
his home in Dallas, Texas, Plaintiff alleges he purchased round trip airline tickets from
Dallas, Texas to Lagos, Nigeria (with connecting flights through Dulles, Virginia) on
United. Id. at 3. The incident giving rise to Plaintiff’s alleged injuries occurred on the
return flight from Lagos, Nigeria to Dulles, Virginia (“Flight 613”). 	Id. at 3-4.
Approximately two hours into Flight 613, the plane allegedly experienced mechanical
and operational issues, including sudden drops in altitude, that caused the pilot to
return to Lagos for an emergency landing. 	Id. 	As a result of the drop in altitude,
Plaintiff 	claims 	he, 	other 	passengers, 	crew 	members, 	and 	luggage 	were 	“thrown
throughout the cabin”. 	Id. 	Plaintiff avers that he suffered an injury to his left leg,
which was diagnosed and treated when he returned to Dallas. Id.
Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant in this Court asserting claims for strict
liability and negligence arising under the Montreal Convention of 1999, invoking
federal subject matter jurisdiction based on both federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331,
and diversity, id. § 1332(a). Doc. No. 1 at 2-3, 4-5 (Original Complaint); see Doc. No.
21 at 3, 5 (First Amended Complaint). Plaintiff is a citizen of Texas and Defendant is
Case 3:25-cv-00933-K Document 29 Filed 03/16/26 Page 2 of 14 PageID <pageID>

3
incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Illinois. 	Doc. No.
1 at ; Doc. No. 21 at 3.
In lieu of answering the Original Complaint, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction (Doc.
No. 13). Plaintiff then filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 21), which is the
live pleading. 	See also Doc. Nos. 18 & 20. 	Thereafter, Defendant filed this Motion,
again moving for dismissal of this case under Rule 12(b)(2). The Motion is fully briefed
and ripe for determination.
II. 	Applicable Law
A. Standard of Review for Rule 12(b)(2) Motion to Dismiss
When a defendant challenges the court’s personal jurisdiction pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing
jurisdiction. 	Johnson v. TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc., 21 F.4th 314, 317 (5th Cir. 2021);
see F ED. R. CIV . P. 12(b)(2). 	If the court does not conduct an evidentiary hearing on
the Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing
of personal jurisdiction. See Danziger & De Llano, L.L.P. v. Morgan Verkamp, L.L.C., 24
F.4th 491, 495 (5th Cir. 2022). That is, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant
has enough minimum contacts with the forum and has purposefully availed itself of
the forum state’s benefits and protections. Panda Brandywine Corp. v. Potomac Elec. Power
Co., 253 F.3d 865, 868 (5th Cir. 2001); see Danzinger & De Llano, 24 F.4th at 495. The
court must accept as true the plaintiff’s “uncontroverted, non-conclusory factual
Case 3:25-cv-00933-K Document 29 Filed 03/16/26 Page 3 of 14 PageID <pageID>

4
allegations and resolve all controverted allegations in [the plaintiff’s] favor.” Diece-Lisa
Indus., Inc. v. Disney Enters., Inc., 943 F.3d 239, 249 (5th Cir. 2019).
In determining the motion to dismiss, “a district court may consider affidavits,
interrogatories, depositions, oral testimony, or any combination of the recognized
methods of discovery.” 	Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467, 469 (5th Cir. 2002) (internal
quotations omitted). 	The court must accept the uncontroverted, nonconclusory
allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint as true and must resolve all controverted
allegations in the plaintiff’s favor. 	Panda Brandywine, 253 F.3d at 868. However, the
Fifth Circuit has emphasized that “such acceptance does not automatically mean that
a prima facie case for [personal] jurisdiction has been presented.” 	Sangha v. Navig8
ShipManagement Priv. Ltd., 882 F.3d 96, 101 (5th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation
omitted).
B. Personal Jurisdiction
1. The Montreal Convention
Plaintiff alleges claims for strict liability and negligence under Articles 17 and 21
of the Montreal Convention of 1999, Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules
for International Carriage by Air, May 28, 1999, reprinted in S. Treaty Doc. 106-45,
1999 WL 33292734 (2000) (the “Montreal Convention”). See Montreal Convention,
Article 17(1) (covers passenger injuries that happen while on board an aircraft or while
embarking or disembarking); id., Article 21 (governing compensation a carrier may be
liable for resulting from the death or injury of a passenger). 	“Like the Warsaw
Case 3:25-cv-00933-K Document 29 Filed 03/16/26 Page 4 of 14 PageID <pageID>

5
Convention, its predecessor, the Montreal Convention [a multilateral treaty entered
into force on November 4, 2003], governs the rights and liabilities of passengers and
carriers in international air transportation.” 	Bridgeman v. United Cont’l Holdings, Inc.,
552 F. App’x 294, 296 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotations omitted); accord Bassam v.
Am. Airlines, 287 F. App’x 309, 312 (5th Cir. 2008). “As a treaty of the United States,
the [Montreal] Convention is considered federal law for subject matter jurisdiction
purposes and is the supreme law of the land.” 	Biscone v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 681 F.
Supp. 2d 383, 385 (E.D.N.Y. 2010); accord Luna v. Compania Panamena De Aviacion,
S.A., 851 F. Supp. 826, 829 (S.D. Tex. 1994) (“Cases arising out of international air
transportation are governed by the Warsaw Convention and are within federal court
original jurisdiction.”).
The Fifth Circuit recently held that, although “[i]t provides a cause of action . .
. and a venue selection clause,” the Montreal Convention “does not provide for service
[of process], so it does not create personal jurisdiction” over a foreign defendant. Hardy
v. Scandinavian Airlines Sys., 117 F.4th 252, 261-62 (5th Cir. 2024). Because the
Montreal Convention itself does not confer personal jurisdiction, the Court must
analyze whether Defendant is subject to the Court’s personal jurisdiction. To that end,
the federal court looks to the Fifth Amendment due process standard where the
plaintiff’s claims arise under federal law. Douglass v. Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha, 46
F.4th 226, 232 (5th Cir. 2022). 	If the “federal statute [] is silent as to service of
process,” the court applies the forum state’s long-arm statute in its personal jurisdiction
Case 3:25-cv-00933-K Document 29 Filed 03/16/26 Page 5 of 14 PageID <pageID>

6
inquiry. 	Rolls-Royce Corp. v. Heros, Inc., 576 F. Supp. 2d 765, 785-786 (N.D. Tex.
2008)(Fitzwater, C.J.) (citing DeMelo v. Toche Marine, Inc., 711 F.2d 1260, 1266 (5th
Cir. 1983)); see Stroman Realty, Inc. v. Wercinski, 513 F.3d 476, 482 (5th Cir. 2008)
(where federal statute “lacks a provision for service of process, federal courts adopt state
jurisdictional statutes to reach out-of-state defendants.”); Point Landing, Inc. v. Omni
Cap. Int’l, Ltd., 795 F.2d 415, 427 (5th Cir. 1986), aff’d, 484 U.S.97 (1987) (“absent
specific congressional authority, a federal district court has no personal jurisdiction over
a defendant who cannot be reached by the long-arm statute of the state in which the
district court sits.”). Thus, in this case, the Court utilizes “the same minimum contacts
test [that] applies under both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments” because the
Montreal Convention does not provide for service of process. Aerotech Holdings, Inc. v.
All. Aerospace Eng’g, LLC, 650 F. Supp. 2d 594, 598 n. 3 (N.D. Tex. 2009).
2. Due Process Requirements—Minimum Contacts Test
Personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant exists where allowed by the
forum state’s long-arm statute and where the exercise of personal jurisdiction is
consistent with federal due process. 	See Def. Distributed v. Grewal, 971 F.3d 485, 490
(5th Cir. 2020). 	The Texas long-arm statute extends to the limits of federal due
process; therefore, the court need only determine if exercising personal jurisdiction over
the non-resident defendant is consistent with federal due process. 	Sangha v. Navig8
ShipManagement Priv. Ltd., 882 F.3d 96, 101 (5th Cir. 2018). 	“Due process requires
that the defendant have ‘minimum contacts’ with the forum state (i.e., that the
Case 3:25-cv-00933-K Document 29 Filed 03/16/26 Page 6 of 14 PageID <pageID>

7
defendant has purposely availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities within
the forum state) and that exercising jurisdiction is consistent with ‘traditional notions
of fair play and substantial justice.’” 	Danziger & De Llano, L.L.P. v. Morgan Verkamp,
L.L.C., 24 F.4th 491, 495 (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting Sangha, 882 F.3d at 101); see Int’l
Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., Office of Unemployment Comp. & Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 316
(1945). This requirement “ensures that a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction
solely as a result of ‘random,’ ‘fortuitous,’ or ‘attenuated’ contacts or the ‘unilateral
activity of another party or third person.’” 	Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S.
462, 475 (1985).
A party’s “minimum contacts” can give rise to general personal jurisdiction and
they can give rise to specific personal jurisdiction. 	Seiferth v. Helicopteros Atuneros, Inc.,
472 F.3d 266, 271 (5th Cir. 2006). 	Plaintiff states in his Response that he does not
assert general personal jurisdiction. 	Doc. No. 27 at 9. 	In conducting the three-step
analysis for specific jurisdiction, the court inquires (1) whether the non-resident
defendant “purposefully directed” its actions at the forum, (2) whether the plaintiff’s
claim arises out of the defendant’s contacts with the forum, and (3) whether the
exercise of personal jurisdiction is fair and reasonable. 	Seiferth, 472 F.3d at 271; see
Burger King, 471 U.S. at 472. The plaintiff bears the burden of proof on the first two
prongs and, only after the plaintiff makes the required showing, does the burden shift
to the defendant to show that exercising personal jurisdiction would be unfair or
unreasonable. 	See Seiferth, 472 F.3d at 271; see also Sangha, 882 F.3d at 102 (non-
Case 3:25-cv-00933-K Document 29 Filed 03/16/26 Page 7 of 14 PageID <pageID>

8
resident defendant “must make a compelling case” that the exercise of it would be
unfair or unreasonable.).
It is well-established that the court’s specific jurisdiction inquiry must focus “on
‘the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.’” Walden v. Fiore,
571 U.S. 277, 283-84 (2014) (quoting Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770,
775 (1984); see Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204 (1977). “[T]he defendant’s suit-
related conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum State.” 	Walden,
571 U.S. at 284. 	The Supreme Court stressed that “the plaintiff cannot be the only
link between the defendant and the forum. Rather, it is the defendant’s conduct that
must form the necessary connection with the forum State that is the basis for its
jurisdiction over him.” Id. at 285; see also id. at 284-85 (“[T]he relationship must arise
out of contacts that the ‘defendant himself’ creates with the forum State” and those
contacts must be “with the forum State itself, not the defendant’s contacts with persons
who reside there.”). 	The court’s inquiry is claim specific as “the Due Process Clause
prohibits the exercise of jurisdiction over any claim that does not arise out of or result
from the defendant’s forum contacts.” Seiferth, 472 F.3d at 274-75.
The court is not required to analyze contacts for each claim when those claims
arise from or relate to the same contact. 	Sedillo as Tr. of Filo and Fran Sedillo Revocable
Tr. v. Team Techs., Inc., Civ. Action No. 3:20-CV-1628-D, 2020 WL 6870711, at *3
(N.D. Tex. Nov. 23, 2020)(Fitzwater, S.J.); see also Seiferth, 472 F.3d at 274-75.
Case 3:25-cv-00933-K Document 29 Filed 03/16/26 Page 8 of 14 PageID <pageID>

9
III. 	Analysis
In its Motion, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not made, and cannot make,
a sufficient showing that specific personal jurisdiction can be exercised here. Doc. No.
25 at 15-20. Based on Plaintiff’s own allegations, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s
claimed injuries clearly arise from or relate to only what occurred on Flight 613,
somewhere 	between 	Lagos, 	Nigeria 	and 	Dulles, 	Virginia. 	Id. 	at 	16-17. 	More
specifically, none of Defendant’s alleged conduct or negligence gives rise to Plaintiff’s
claims occurred in Texas. 	Id. at 15-20. 	Defendant further argues that, even if the
Court found sufficient minimum contacts, the exercise of personal jurisdiction would
offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Plaintiff responds that he “has sufficiently established a substantial connection
between Defendant’s contacts and the operative facts of the claim to support specific
jurisdiction.” 	Doc. No. 27 at 10; see also id. at 9 (disclaiming general personal
jurisdiction exists). 	Although he admits the incident occurred on Flight 613 from
Lagos, Nigeria to Dulles, Virginia, Plaintiff insists that his claims “have a substantial
connection to Defendant’s activities in Texas” because Plaintiff purchased the United
ticket while in Texas, and he departed from and intended to return to Texas. Id. at 10-
11. 	Plaintiff also asserts that the Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over
Defendant would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Id.
at 12-15.
Case 3:25-cv-00933-K Document 29 Filed 03/16/26 Page 9 of 14 PageID <pageID>

10
In its Reply, Defendant re-urges its previous arguments that specific jurisdiction
does not exist. 	Doc. No. 28 at 2-5. 	Defendant also emphasizes that Plaintiff fails to
submit any legal authority supporting his assertion that purchasing the tickets in Texas
for flights originating in and returning to Texas supports this Court’s exercise of specific
jurisdiction over Defendant. Id. at 3-4.
The Court concludes that Plaintiff fails to make a prima facie showing of personal
jurisdiction over Defendant. 	Specifically, the Court finds that, as alleged in the
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff’s claims do not arise out of or relate to Defendant’s
contacts with Texas and, therefore, the Court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over
Defendant. 	(The 	Court 	does 	not 	address 	the 	first 	prong—whether 	Defendant
“purposefully directed” its actions at the forum—because Plaintiff fails to make the
required showing on the second prong.)
Plaintiff contends that his “claims have a substantial connection to Defendant’s”
contacts with Texas because he “purchased the airfare in Texas, departed from Texas
with Defendant airline, and was in the process of flying back to Texas with Defendant,”
on a connecting flight, when he was “injured upon the return journey home.” 	Doc.
No. 27 at 11. According to Plaintiff, “this is sufficient to confer specific jurisdiction.”
Id. To the extent these are contacts Defendant had with Texas (which the Court does
not find), they are not the “jurisdictional hooks” that Plaintiff suggests they are because
his claims simply “arise out of or relate to” those purported contacts as required by due
process. See Seiferth, 472 F.3d at 274-75 (“the Due Process Clause prohibits the exercise
Case 3:25-cv-00933-K Document 29 Filed 03/16/26 Page 10 of 14 PageID <pageID>

11
of jurisdiction over any claim that does not arise out of or result from the defendant’s
forum contacts.” ).
There is no dispute that the incident causing Plaintiff’s alleged injuries occurred
on Flight 613 from Lagos, Nigeria to Dulles, Virgina, and that the incident then caused
the plane to return to Lagos. 	Plaintiff’s claims clearly arise from Defendant’s alleged
conduct and/or negligence in failing to maintain certain systems of the aircraft and in
failing to take precautionary procedures that, shortly after departing Lagos, “caused the
autopilot [system] to disconnect” which then “caus[ed] an immediate and precipitous
drop in altitude” “followed by smaller drops as the plane tried to gain altitude” thereby
allegedly causing Plaintiff to be injured and then “the pilot turned the plane around
and flew back to Lagos for an emergency landing.” Doc. No. 21 at 4, ¶¶3-4.
“The question of whether a cause of action arises out of or relates to a
defendant's forum contact is analogous to the issue of proximate cause in tort law.”
Luna, 851 F. Supp. at 832. 	In this case, Plaintiff’s claims as alleged do not allow for
any other conclusion than that they “arise out of [Defendant’s] alleged negligence in
aircraft maintenance and operation of a flight” that departed from Lagos, Nigeria with
a destination of Dulles, Virginia, and that injuries Plaintiff allegedly sustained from the
incident occurred somewhere in international territory. 	Id. at 832-33. 	Plaintiff does
not allege Defendant’s alleged negligence and/or conduct occurred in Texas or that
Defendant’s activities in Texas are otherwise responsible for the injuries Plaintiff
allegedly suffered on Flight 613.
Case 3:25-cv-00933-K Document 29 Filed 03/16/26 Page 11 of 14 PageID <pageID>

12
The 	Court 	finds 	Ojugbana 	v. 	Virgin 	Atlantic 	Airways 	Limited 	to 	be 	highly
instructive. 	2024 WL 4681751, (D. Mass. Nov. 5, 2024). 	There, the district court
found the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the foreign airline defendant did not
satisfy the minimal due process requirements because the plaintiff’s claims did not
“arise out of or relate to” the defendant’s activities in the forum. 	Id. at 4-5; see id. at
*3 n.4. While at home in the forum, the plaintiff purchased round-trip airline tickets
from Boston, Massachusetts to Lagos, Nigeria directly from the foreign defendant
airline. 	Id. at *1. 	On the return connecting flight from London, England to Boston,
the plaintiff became very ill allegedly from contaminated food served by the defendant’s
in-flight food service. Id. In analyzing specific personal jurisdiction, the district court
emphasized that, to satisfy due process, the plaintiff’s claims “must arise out of or relate
to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.” Id. at *4. While the plaintiff alleged that
the defendant operated flights to and from the forum and that he purchased the ticket
in 	the 	forum, 	the 	plaintiff’s 	“complaint 	does 	not 	allege 	that 	[the 	defendant’s]
Massachusetts activities included activities such as those which caused the injury—that
is, purchasing and serving food.” Id. at *4-5. Finding “there is no clear nexus between
the forum, the defendant, and the allegations in the complaint,” the district court
concluded that the defendant’s “contacts with the forum are not sufficiently related to
the plaintiff’s alleged injury to support the exercise of specific jurisdiction.” Id. at *5.
Here, the Court concludes that Defendant’s purported contacts with Texas as
alleged in the Amended Complaint do not have any substantial connection to Plaintiff’s
Case 3:25-cv-00933-K Document 29 Filed 03/16/26 Page 12 of 14 PageID <pageID>

13
alleged injury. 	In other words, Plaintiff’s claims do not “arise out of or relate to”
Defendant’s contacts with the forum and, so, the due process requirements are not
satisfied and the Court cannot exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant.
See Seiferth, 472 F.3d at 274-75 (“the Due Process Clause prohibits the exercise of
jurisdiction over any claim that does not arise out of or result from the defendant’s
forum contacts.” ); see also Kervin v. Red River Ski Area, Inc., 711 F. Supp. 1383, 1389-
90 (E.D. Tex. 1989) (“In personam jurisprudence has taken a restrictive view of the
relationship between causes of action and contacts, seemingly to require virtually a
direct link between claim and contacts in order to pursue a specific jurisdiction
analysis.”) .
Because Plaintiff fails to establish the second prong, the Court need not address
whether exercising specific personal jurisdiction would be unfair or unreasonable.
The Court finds that Plaintiff failed to make the required prima facie showing of
personal jurisdiction over non-resident Defendant. 	Because personal jurisdiction is
lacking, the Court must grant the Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff does not request leave
to amend his complaint should the Court grant the Motion. 	See Doc. No. 27 at 15
(acknowledging he can “seek requested relief elsewhere (i.e. Illinois)” and asking that
“[i]n the alternative, should the Court determine dismissal is warranted, Plaintiff prays
that such dismissal be without prejudice.”). 	Even if Plaintiff had so requested, the
Court would be inclined to find any further amendment would be futile. 	For those
reasons, the Court will not allow Plaintiff to amend his Amended Complaint. (Neither
Case 3:25-cv-00933-K Document 29 Filed 03/16/26 Page 13 of 14 PageID <pageID>

14
party asks the Court to transfer the case to another district.) 	Accordingly, the Court
dismisses this case without prejudice.
IV. 	Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
Signed March 16 th , 2026.
____________________________________
ED KINKEADE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-00933-K Document 29 Filed 03/16/26 Page 14 of 14 PageID <pageID>