Nicoline Ambe v. Air France, SA

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: August 10, 2021
• Docket: 2:17-cv-08719
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 O 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NICOLINE AMBE,individually, ) Case No. 2:17-CV-08719 DDP-E and THE ESTATE OF THE ) 12 DECEDENT NDIFORCHU ALFRED ) TAMUNANG, by administrator ) ORDER RE: MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY 13 NICOLINE AMBE; SUZY ANJIM ) JUDGMENT NDIFORCHU; BLAFANWI ) 14 NDIFORCHU; BOBBI AMANG ) [Dkt. 94, 95] NDIFORCHU; CHO MOFOR ) 15 NDIFORCHU; SARAH NGWE GEH ) ) 16 Plaintiffs, 17 v. 18 AIR FRANCE, S.A., a French public limited company; and 19 DOES 1-50. 20 Defendant. 21 22 Presently before the court are cross motions for summary 23 judgment filed by Plaintiffs (Dkt. 94) and Defendant Air France, 24 S.A. (“Air France”) (Dkt. 95). Having considered the submissions 25 of the parties, the court GRANTS Air France’s motion, DENIES 26 Plaintiffs’ motion, and adopts the following Order. 27 I. Background 28 On December 7, 2015, Ndiforchu Alfred Tamunang (“Decedent”) 1 Amended Complaint ¶ 22.) At the start of the flight’s descent into 2 Paris, flight attendants discovered Decedent stretched out across 3 three seats. (Declaration of Sarah Passeri, Ex. A at 4.) 4 Decedent’s eyes were rolled back, he was not breathing, and he had 5 no pulse. (Id.) Five flight attendants, including a nurse, 6 attempted to resuscitate Decedent through the use of an automatic 7 external defibrillator, cardiac massage, a balloon ventilator, 8 oxygen, and the injection of “pysiological serum,” to no avail.1 9 (Id.) Cockpit personnel immediately informed the control tower to 10 request priority landing and the immediate assistance of French 11 emergency medical technicians. (Passeri Decl., Ex. C at 11.) 12 French medical personnel on the ground took over resuscitative 13 efforts from flight attendants, but declared Decedent dead on the 14 plane a few minutes later. (Passeri Decl. Ex. A at 4, C at 11.) 15 The U.S. State Department’s Report of Death of U.S. Citizen Abroad 16 indicates that Decedent died of “Natural causes,” as certified by a 17 French doctor from the Charles de Gaulle Airport Medical Unit and 18 registered with French authorities the day after Decedent’s death. 19 (Passeri Decl., Ex. M.) 20 Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint, however, alleges that an 21 autopsy, conducted approximately 6 weeks later in Cameroon, 22 determined that Decedent’s cause of death was “accidental 23 aspyhxiation.” (TAC ¶ 29.) Plaintiffs’ TAC alleges causes of 24 action for strict liability and negligence against Air France, 25 pursuant to the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules 26 Relating to International Carriage by Air, May 28, 1999, S. Treaty 27 1 There appears to be no dispute that this term refers to 28 saline. 1]} Doc. No. 106-45 (“Montreal Convention”). Plaintiffs and Air France now each move for summary judgment. 3] II. Legal Standard 4 Summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show “that there is no 7 genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for its motion and of identifying those portions of the pleadings and discovery responses that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. 13} Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). All reasonable inferences from 14] the evidence must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 242 (1986). If the moving party does not bear the burden of proof at trial, it is entitled to summary judgment if it can demonstrate that “there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. 20 Once the moving party meets its burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party opposing the motion, who must “set forth 22\|| specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” 23|) Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. Summary judgment is warranted if a party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. A genuine issue exists if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving

1] party,” and material facts are those “that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. There is no genuine issue of fact “[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio 6 Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). 7 It is not the court’s task “to scour the record in search of a genuine issue of triable fact.” Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1278 (9th Cir. 1996). Counsel have an obligation to lay out their 10] support clearly. Carmen v. San Francisco Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001). The court “need not examine the entire file for evidence establishing a genuine issue of fact, where the 13}/ evidence is not set forth in the opposition papers with adequate references so that it could conveniently be found.” Id. III. Discussion 16 Under Article 17 of the Montreal Convention, an air “carrier 17}/is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of 18]/a passenger upon condition only that the accident which caused the 19] death or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.” Montreal Convention, art. 17. The dispositive question here is whether 22 || Decedent’s death resulted from an “accident.” 2s It is well established that, for purposes of the Montreal 24 Convention, an injury arises from an accident “only if a 20 passenger’s injury is caused by an unexpected or unusual event 26 27 28

or happening that is external to the passenger.”* Air France Saks, 470 U.S. 392, 405 (1985); Phifer v. Icelandair, 652 3] F.3d 1222, 1224 (9th Cir. 2011). “But when the injury indisputably results from the passenger’s own internal reaction to the usual, normal, and expected operation of the aircraft, it has not been caused by an accident ... .” Saks, 470 U.S. at 406; Caman v. Cont’l Airlines, Inc., 455 8] F.3d 1087, 1089 (9th Cir. 2006). A Plaintiff bringing a Montreal Convention claim bears the burden of showing that an accident occurred. See Armstrong v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 11] 416 F. Supp. 3d 1030, 1043 (D. Haw. 2019). 12 A. Cause of Death 13 14 Here, French medical authorities determined that Decedent 15 died of “[nJatural causes.” Such an injury, if suffered in 16 the usual course of aircraft operations, would not, of course, 17 constitute an “accident.” Plaintiffs attempt to carry their 18 burden, or to at least create a genuine dispute of fact as to 19 the cause of Decedent’s death, by arguing that their own 50 motion for summary judgment “proved” that Decedent died not of natural causes, but rather by “accidental asphyxia.” 29 (Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Air France MSJ at 5.) Needless to 23 * In Montreal Convention cases, courts regularly apply DA principles applicable to the Montreal Convention’s predecessor, Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to 25 International Transportation by Air (“Warsaw Convention”’)”, October 12, 1929, 49 Stat. 3000, 137 L.N.T.S. See Narayanan v. British 26 Airways, 747 F.3d at 1127 n.2. 27 > Although Plaintiffs’ Opposition (Dkt. 101) to Air France’s Motion for Summary Judgment is captioned correctly, each page of 28 Plaintiffs’ Opposition is labeled “Memorandum of Points and Authorities ISO Plaintiffs’ MSJ.”

say, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is not evidence. 21 More importantly, however, Plaintiffs’ theory as to “accidental asphyxia” is not supported by any admissible evidence. 1. Dr. Wanji 6 7 Plaintiffs’ asphyxiation theory is based primarily upon 9 the declaration of non-retained expert Dr. Wanji Rene (“Dr. 9 Wanji”’), produced for the first time in connection with 10 Plaintiff’s motion. Dr. Wanji’s declaration is accompanied by tl a two-page autopsy report ostensibly conducted in Cameroon six 12 weeks after Decedent’s death. Dr. Wanji’s opinion is 13 inadmissible for several reasons. First, Dr. Wanji never 1A produced a written report, as required under Federal Rule of 15 Procedure 26(a) (2) (B) of all experts “retained or specially 16 employed to provide expert testimony.” Plaintiff’s only 17 explanation is that Dr. Wanji is a non-retained expert. 18 Courts, however, do not necessarily exempt experts from Rule 19 26(a) (2) (B) simply on the basis of counsel’s designation. 50 see, e.g., Burreson v. BASF Corp., No. 2:13-CV-0066 TLN AC, 2014 WL 4195588, at *4 (B.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2014); cf. Goodman 29 v. Staples The Off. Superstore, LLC, 644 F.3d 817, 826 (9th 53 Cir. 2011) (“[A] treating physician is only exempt from Rule DA 26(a) (2) (B)’s written report requirement to the extent that 5 his opinions were formed during the course of treatment.”). Indeed, Dr. Wanji’s declaration states that he reviewed documents produced in the course of this litigation, which 59 were presumably provided to him by Plaintiffs’ counsel.

1 (Wanji Decl. ¶ 4.) The declaration is silent as to the nature 2 of Dr. Wanji’s relationship to or interactions with Plaintiffs 3 or their counsel. (Wanji Decl. ¶ 4.) 4 Second, even assuming that Rule 26(a)(2)(B) does not 5 apply to Dr. Wanji, Rule 26(a)(2)(C) does. Rule 26(a)(2)(C) 6 requires an expert disclosure to state (1) “the subject matter 7 on which the witness is expected to present evidence” and (2) 8 “a summary of the facts and opinions to which the witness is 9 expected to to testify.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C). 10 Plaintiffs’ disclosure, which stated only that Dr. Wanji “may 11 provide expert testimony with regards to his autopsy report, 12 medical facts and opinions concerning examination, diagnosis, 13 results of the autopsy [sic] . . .” complied with only the 14 first of these prescriptions, and can hardly be said to 15 comprise a summary of Dr. Wanji’s opinion that Decedent died 16 of accidental asphyxiation resulting from the ingestion of a 17 cork. Plaintiffs may not, therefore, rely upon the Wanji 18 Declaration to support or oppose the instant motions for 19 summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). 20 Even putting aside Rule 26 disclosure issues, Dr. Wanji’s 21 declaration does not meet the standards of admissibility 22 imposed by Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Trial courts have a 23 gatekeeping function regarding expert testimony. Daubert v. 24 Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 n.7 25 (1993). Where “scientific, technical, or other specialized 26 knowledge will assist the trier of fact” to understand 27 evidentiary or factual issues, an expert witness who is 28 qualified by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” may “testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. The proponent of the expert testimony has the burden of establishing that the relevant 5} admissibility requirements are met by a “preponderance of the evidence.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 592 n.10 (citing Bourjaily v. 7! United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175 (1987)). Courts employ a flexible inquiry tied to the facts of the particular case to make determinations regarding the reliability of expert testimony. Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 11/152 (1999). The focus should be “solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions they generate.” Daubert, 134509 U.S. at 595; see also Fed. R. Evid. 702 Adv. Comm. Note to 2000 Amdt. An expert’s experience alone can provide a sufficient foundation for expert testimony, so long as the witness explains “how that experience leads to the conclusion 17] reached, why that experience is a sufficient basis for the opinion, and how that experience is reliably applied to the facts.” Fed. R. Evid. 702 Advisory Committee Note to 2000 20] Amdt. Dr. Wanji’s declaration falls short of Rule 702 standards 22 in numerous respects. First, the only evidence of Dr. Wanji’s qualifications is his own statement that he is “a medical 24 doctor and pathologist with over 20 years of experience.” 2° (Wanji Decl. @ 1.) There is no indication that Dr. Wanji has 26 any particular expertise in asphyxiation, or indeed that he has ever conducted an autopsy other than that of Decedent. 28

1 Nor do Plaintiffs respond in any way to Air France’s 2 contention that Dr. Wanhji is, in fact, a neonatologist. 3 Second, although Dr. Wanji’s declaration states that “multiple 4 other instructions not followed are procedures which would 5 have greatly enhanced to . . . over 80% [Decedent’s] chance of 6 surviving . . .,” he provides no methodology to explain such a 7 conclusion. The court notes further that Dr. Wanji’s 8 declaration that Decedent was “in good health and great shape” 9 when he boarded the plane is inconsistent with Dr. Wanji’s own 10 autopsy report, which stated that Decent was “thin, frail,” 11 and had “poor dentition with evidence of remote missing 12 teeth,” with apparent history of a tracheal tube and a “G- 13 tube.” Given these questions about Dr. Wanji’s 14 qualifications, experience, and methodology, his declaration 15 and report are not sufficiently reliable, and are not 16 admissible under Rule 702. 17 2. Dr. Nsahlai 18 Plaintiffs also rely upon the declaration and report of 19 Christiane Nsahlai (“Dr. Nsahlai.”) Dr. Nsahlai submitted an 20 expert report opining that Decedent died of “accidental 21 asphyxia,” that his death “was an unusual or unexpected event 22 that was external to him,” and that Air France did not follow 23 its own medical protocols. Dr. Nsahlai’s opinions, however, 24 are also not admissible. As an initial matter, and 25 notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ counsel’s attempt to prevent Dr. 26 Nsahlai from answering questions concerning her relationship 27 to counsel, with whom she shares a last name, it is now clear 28 1 that Dr. Nsahlai is Plaintiffs’ counsel’s sister. “Federal 2 courts have the inherent power to disqualify expert witnesses 3 to protect the integrity of the adversary process, protect 4 privileges that otherwise may be breached, and promote public 5 confidence in the legal system.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. EMC 6 Corp., 330 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1092 (N.D. Cal. 2004). Dr. 7 Nsahlai’s obvious conflict of interest would alone be 8 sufficient to warrant her disqualification. 9 Furthermore, however, Dr. Nsahlai’s opinions are not 10 admissible under Rule 702. Although designated as an expert 11 on Montreal Convention accidents, airline emergency 12 procedures, and “medical facts” involving Decedent, Dr. 13 Nsahlai testified that she has no experience in the aviation 14 industry as anything other than a passenger, she has no 15 training or expertise in on-board medical procedures, and her 16 only knowledge of the Montreal Convention is “hearing about 17 it.” Nor is there any indication that any other experience 18 qualifies her to render expert opinions in this matter, or 19 that her opinions are grounded in any reliable methodology. 20 Rather, her opinion appears to have been based largely on the 21 inadmissible opinions of Dr. Wanji, and no other medical 22 records, Indeed, Dr. Nsahlai acknowledged that she did not 23 take the French certification of death by natural causes into 24 account. Furthermore, like Dr. Wanji, she does not appear to 25 have any expertise in asphyxiation or autopsies, but rather is 26 a doctor of obstetrics and gynecology in Cameroon. In light 27 of these facts, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that her 28 opinions or testimony are admissible under Rule 702, and 2 Plaintiffs may not rely on them here. 5 B. Air France’s Actions 4 5 Apart from the “accidental asphyxiation” theory, 6 Plaintiffs posit that Air France’s various alleged failures 7 with respect to the medical care provided to Decedent onboard 9 the aircraft constitute an “accident.” Actions by crew 9 members can, in some cases, qualify as the type of “unexpected 10 or unusual event” necessary to the occurrence of an “accident” ll under the Montreal Convention. In Prescod v. AMR, Inc., 383 12 F.3d 861, 868 (9th Cir. 2004), for example, a passenger 13 notified the air carrier that she was traveling with a bag 14 containing medication and a breathing-assistance device, which 15 needed to remain with her at all times. Prescod, 383 F.3d at 16 864. Although the airline had promised that the bag could 17 stay with the passenger, she was forced to relinquish the bag 18 before boarding the second leg of her flight. Id. The 19 carrier then lost the bag, and the passenger died of 50 respiratory distress some days later. Id. at 865. The Ninth Circuit found that, although baggage delays are not unusual, 29 “removing the bag from Neischer's possession was ‘unusual or 53 unexpected.’ Airlines do not usually take steps that could DA endanger a passenger’s life after having been warned of the 5 person’s special, reasonable needs and agreeing to accommodate 26 them.” Id. at 868. 27 Inaction, too, may constitute an unusual event sufficient to qualify as an “accident.” In Olympic Airways v. Husain, 11

1 540 U.S. 644, 647 (2004), for example, an asthmatic passenger 2 informed an air carrier that he could not sit near smoking 3 passengers, and supported his claim with a letter from a 4 physician. Husain, 540 U.S. at 647. The airline nevertheless 5 seated the passenger near a smoking section and thrice refused 6 to re-seat him. Id. Heavy cigarette smoke caused the 7 passenger to have a severe asthma attack, and die. Id. at 8 648. The Supreme Court held that, although the smoke itself 9 was not unusual, and the passenger’s reaction was internal, 10 the crew’s failure to act qualified as an unusual event 11 external to the passenger, sufficient to qualify as an 12 “accident.” Id. at 654-55. 13 Here, Plaintiffs point to several supposed instances of 14 the crew’s unusual, wrongful responses upon discovering 15 Decedent unconscious, including “failure to follow in-flight 16 medical procedures,” failure to seek the assistance of a 17 ground-based doctor, improper administration of saline, and 18 failure to properly use the defibrillator. Plaintiffs point to 19 no admissible evidence, however, to support these theories. 20 As discussed above, the opinions of Drs. Wanhji and Nsahlai 21 are not admissible. The only other evidence cited by 22 Plaintiffs is the opinion of Helen Zienkievicz, a designated 23 expert in “the applicable standard of care, negligence, with 24 regards to Air Franc’s handling of the medical emergency of 25 [Decedent], accident under the Montreal Convention.”4 26 27 4 Plaintiffs’ do not dispute that they did not take the 28 deposition of any percipient witness. 1 (Passeri Decl., Ex C ¶ 1.) Zienkievicz’s expert report also 2 describes her as “an expert in the field of aviation industry 3 standards.” (Id., Ex. D.). Nevertheless, Zienkievicz 4 testified that she is only “somewhat familiar with [the 5 Montreal Convention],” and is “not a legal expert.” (Passeri 6 Decl., Ex. E at 37.) Furthermore, although Zienkievicz’s 7 report opines that Decedent died from “accidental asphyxia,” 8 and that various Air France crew members’ actions or inactions 9 contributed to Decedent’s death, she testified that she was 10 not rendering a “medical opinion,” but rather an opinion on 11 “cabin safety and CPR and Hemlich.” (Passeri Decl., Ex. E at 12 68.) Zienkievicz appears, thus, to have conceded that she is 13 not qualified to render any opinion as to whether an 14 “accident” occurred for purposes of the Montreal Convention, 15 or as to the cause of Decedent’s death and the factors that 16 contributed to it. 17 Zienkievicz’s principles and methodology, or lack 18 thereof, are also cause for concern. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 19 595. Zienkievicz’s conclusions are admittedly founded upon 20 the inadmissible Wanji opinions, discussed above. (Passeri 21 Decl., Ex. E at 68.) Although Zienkievicz also testified that 22 her opinions were partly based upon the flight attendants’ 23 reports, those reports are in French. Zienkievicz testified, 24 however, that she does not read French, and used Google 25 Translate to interpret some of the French-language documents.5 26 (Id. at 21, 39.) Plaintiffs do not dispute Air France’s 27 2 8 1 representations that Plaintiffs, despite Air France’s request, 2 never produced any translated documents upon which Zienkievicz 3 relied, and Plaintiffs have not shown, or attempted to show, 4 that any Google Translate translations were accurate. 5 Nor was Zienkievicz aware of critical details of this 6 case, including documentation indicating that French 7 authorities determined that Decedent died of natural causes. 8 (Id. at 41-42.) Further, although Zienkievicz opined that a 9 flight attendant “practiced maleficence” by injecting Decedent 10 with saline, she provides no basis for her assumption that the 11 treating flight attendant, a nurse, was not authorized or 12 trained to administer saline. Zienkievicz also later 13 testified that she could not say whether administering saline 14 would cause any harm.6 (Id., Ex. D at 6;) Ex. E at 90.) 15 Under these facts, the preponderance of the evidence does not 16 support the conclusion that the requirements of Rule 702 have 17 been met. Zienkievicz’s opinions are not admissible. 18 IV. Conclusion 19 20 Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving the elements of their 21 case. They have cited no admissible evidence to establish that an 22 “accident,” as defined under the Montreal Convention, led to 23 Decedent’s death. Plaintiffs have therefore failed to show that 24 6 Somewhat ironically, Zienkievicz testified that an onboard 25 nurse may not have been qualified to administer saline because “if somebody . . . works in a neonatal clinic or a neonatal ICU, that 26 doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re going to know what to do with an adult in terms of medicines, medications, and treatment.” 27 (Passeri Decl., Ex. E at 79.) As discussed above, Dr. Wanji appears to practice neonatal medicine and Dr. Nsahlai is a doctor 28 of obstetrics and gynecology. there is a genuine issue for trial, let alone that summary judgment in their favor is warranted. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgement is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 10 11] Pated: = august 10, 2021 12 DEAN D. PREGERSON 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 15