IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

 

ZAINAL ABIDIN, individually, and 

as Special Administrator of the 

Estate of INDRA BAYU AJI, 

Deceased; SITI ANBIYA 

GHAASYIYA ISHIMICHI, 

individually, and as Special 

Administrator of the Estate of TRIE 

YUDHA GAUTAMA, Deceased; and 

TANDINA SUKARNO PUTRI, 

individually, and as Special 

Administrator of the Estate of 

PERMADI ANGGRIMULJA, 

Deceased,

Plaintiffs,

)

)

)

) 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

In re: Lion Air Flight JT 610 crash

)

v. ) Case No. 20-cv-2643

)

THE BOEING COMPANY, a 

corporation, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT AT LAW

Plaintiffs, ZAINAL ABIDIN, individually, and as Special 

Administrator of the Estate of INDRA BAYU AJI, Deceased; SITI ANBIYA 

GHAASYIYA ISHIMICHI, individually, and as Special Administrator of the 

Estate of TRIE YUDHA GAUTAMA, Deceased; and TANDINA SUKARNO 

Case: 1:20-cv-02643 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/20 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:1
2

PUTRI, individually, and as Special Administrator of the Estate of 

PERMADI ANGGRIMULJA, Deceased, by their attorneys, Austin Bartlett of 

BartlettChen LLC and Manuel von Ribbeck and Monica Ribbeck Kelly of

Ribbeck Law Chartered, bring this Complaint at Law against the Defendant,

The Boeing Company, and in support, allege the following:

INTRODUCTION

1. On Monday, October 29, 2018, a newly-delivered Boeing 737 MAX 8

commercial aircraft crashed in the Java Sea off the coast of Indonesia killing 

everyone on board. The Boeing 737 MAX 8 was being operated by the Lion

Air airline as Lion Air Flight JT 610.

2. The newly-delivered Boeing 737 MAX 8 crashed as a result of, among 

other things, a new Boeing flight control system which automatically steered

the aircraft toward the ground, and which caused an excessive nose-down 

attitude, significant altitude loss, and, ultimately, the crash into the Java Sea

killing everyone on board.

3. The new automated flight control system on the Boeing 737 MAX 8 is 

known as the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS). 

Boeing added MCAS because during its redesign of the Boeing 737, Boeing 

changed the type, size, and placement of the aircraft’s engines, which made 

the aircraft susceptible to stalling and altered the aircraft’s handling 

characteristics.

Case: 1:20-cv-02643 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/20 Page 2 of 15 PageID #:2
3

4. Although the Boeing 737 MAX 8 has two angle of attack (AOA) sensors, 

Boeing designed the MCAS system to only rely on data from a single AOA 

sensor. Due to this lack of redundancy, if a single AOA sensor is defective, the 

sensor will feed false information to the MCAS, which, in turn, will cause the 

MCAS to repeatedly activate, override the pilots, and force the aircraft into 

an unwarranted nose-dive.

5. On March 10, 2019, a second Boeing 737 Max 8 aircraft crashed in 

Ethiopia (Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302) under circumstances which are 

strikingly similar to the Lion Air JT 610 crash, namely Boeing’s MCAS was 

erroneously activated and forced the aircraft into an unwarranted nose-dive.

6. Following the Ethiopian Airlines crash, the Boeing 737 Max 8 aircraft 

was grounded around the world. Congress, the Department of Transportation, 

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Department of Justice, and 

the FBI have launched investigations into the certification and safety of the 

Boeing 737 MAX.

7. On April 4, 2019, Boeing’s then Chairman, President, and CEO,

Dennis A. Muilenburg, issued a statement wherein he admitted that Boeing’s 

MCAS activated based on erroneous AOA information, and that this was a

contributing cause of both the Lion Air JT 610 crash and the Ethiopian 

Airlines Flight 302 crash:

“* * *[I]t’s apparent that in both flights the Maneuvering 

Characteristics Augmentation System, known as MCAS, 

activated in response to erroneous angle of attack 

information. The history of our industry shows most 

Case: 1:20-cv-02643 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/20 Page 3 of 15 PageID #:3
4

accidents are caused by a chain of events. This again is the 

case here, and we know we can break one of those chain 

links in these two accidents. As pilots have told us, 

erroneous activation of the MCAS function can add to what 

is already a high workload environment. It’s our 

responsibility to eliminate this risk. We own it and we 

know how to do it.” (emphasis added.)

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this controversy under 

the Multiparty, Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act of 2002, 28 U.S.C. § 1369, 

because there is minimal diversity between the parties and the accident 

involves at least 75 deaths at a discrete location in a single accident. Boeing 

is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois. 

Plaintiff and Decedent are citizens of Indonesia. The crash of Lion Air Flight 

JT 610 into the Java Sea resulted in the deaths of all 189 people on board the 

aircraft.

9. Plaintiffs elect to pursue all maritime claims in this Court under the 

Savings-to-Suitors Clause. See 28 U.S.C. § 1333.

PARTIES & VENUE

10. Plaintiffs are citizens of Indonesia and have been appointed as the

Special Administrator of the Estates of the Decedents. At all relevant times, 

the Decedents were citizens of Indonesia.

11.The Boeing Company (“Boeing”) is a corporation organized under the

laws of Delaware with its worldwide headquarters and principal place of 

business in Chicago, Illinois. It is thus a citizen of Delaware and Illinois.

Case: 1:20-cv-02643 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/20 Page 4 of 15 PageID #:4
5

12.Venue is proper because Boeing’s worldwide headquarters and 

principal place of business is located in Chicago, Illinois, and a substantial 

part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this 

District.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

I. Boeing 737 MAX 8 Design & Manufacture

13.Boeing’s 737 series of aircraft is the highest selling commercial aircraft 

in history with over 10,000 aircraft delivered. 

14.Boeing’s 737 MAX series is the fourth generation of the Boeing 737 

series of aircraft and was first announced by Boeing on August 30, 2011; the

first flight was several years later, on January 29, 2016.

15.Prior to March 8, 2017, Boeing designed the 737 MAX 8 model aircraft

in the United States. 

16.On March 8, 2017, the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) 

approved the design for the 737 MAX 8 model aircraft, also known as the

737-8.

17. At all relevant times, Boeing manufactured the 737 MAX 8 model

aircraft in the United States. 

18. The 737 MAX 8 is one of Boeing’s several 737 MAX series of aircraft, 

the newest generation of Boeing’s 737 series of aircraft, which Boeing

initially designed, in the United States, in or around 1964—over 50 years ago. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02643 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/20 Page 5 of 15 PageID #:5
6

19. According to Boeing, as part of its generational redesigns of the 737 

series of aircraft, it “has continuously improved the products, features, and 

services.”

20. At all relevant times, Boeing marketed the 737 MAX aircraft as a 

seamless continuation of its prior 737 series aircraft in terms of operation 

and maintenance. 

21. On its website, Boeing states:

Airlines ask for an airplane that fits smoothly in today’s fleet

Because of the 737’s popularity with airlines everywhere around 

the world, integrating the new 737 MAX is an easy proposition. 

As you build your 737 MAX fleet, millions of dollars will be 

saved because of its commonality with the Next-Generation 737, 

ease of maintenance, wide availability of 737 pilots, and the 

global infrastructure that supports the aircraft in operation.1

On the same website, Boeing further states that “737 Flight Crews Will Feel 

at Home in the MAX.”2 (emphasis added.)

22. The Boeing 737 MAX 8, however, had a significantly different design 

from previous 737-series aircrafts, which were not appropriately disclosed to 

airlines or pilots.

II. Boeing 737 MAX 8 Defect

23. Unlike any prior 737, Boeing designed the 737 MAX 8 to 

automatically dive toward the ground in certain situations, namely, where

the aircraft’s AOA sensor provided information to the MCAS indicating such

a dive was necessary to maintain lift.

1 https://www.boeing.com/commercial/737max/by-design/#/operational-commonality

2 https://www.boeing.com/commercial/737max/by-design/#/advanced-flight-deck

Case: 1:20-cv-02643 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/20 Page 6 of 15 PageID #:6
7

24. A consequence of this unsafe design, however, was that any 

misinformation from the AOA sensor to the MCAS would cause the Boeing 

737 MAX 8 to automatically and erroneously dive toward the ground. This 

condition can lead to an excessive nose-down attitude, significant altitude

loss, and impact with terrain.

III. Lion Air Flight 610

25. In or around August 2018, Boeing delivered a newly manufactured 

737 MAX 8 aircraft with tail number PK-LQP (the “Subject Aircraft”) to Lion 

Air airlines in Indonesia.

26. Two months later, on the morning of October 29, 2018, Lion Air was 

operating the Subject Aircraft on a commercial flight from Jakarta, Indonesia

to Pangkal Pinang, Indonesia (“Lion Air Flight JT 610”).

27. Around 6:22 a.m. on the morning of October 29, 2018, shortly after 

takeoff from Jakarta, the pilot for Lion Air Flight JT 610 asked air traffic 

control to return to Jakarta because of a problem controlling the subject

aircraft.

28. Around 10 minutes later, around 6:32 a.m., the Subject Aircraft 

crashed into the Java Sea at a high speed and disintegrated.

29. Plaintiffs’ Decedents were onboard Flight JT 610 and died in the crash.

30. At no relevant time prior to the crash of Lion Air Flight JT 610 into

the Java Sea did Boeing adequately warn Lion Air or its pilots of the unsafe 

Case: 1:20-cv-02643 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/20 Page 7 of 15 PageID #:7
8

condition caused by the new “auto-diving” design of the 737 MAX 8 flight 

system.

31. As a result of the crash of Lion Air Flight JT 610, on November 7, 

2018, the FAA issued “Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2018-23-51

[to] owners and operators of The Boeing Company Model 737-8 and -9

airplanes,” which contained mandatory warning and instructions as to the

“unsafe condition . . . likely to exist or develop” in the 737 MAX 8 relating to 

its new auto-diving feature. 

32. According to reports, prior to the crash of Lion Air Flight JT 610,

Boeing 737 pilots “were not privy in training or in any other manuals or 

materials” to information regarding “the new system Boeing had installed on 

737 MAX jets that could command the plane’s nose down in certain situations 

to prevent a stall.” 3 Further reports indicate that Boeing “withheld

information about potential hazards with the new flight-control feature.”4

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I

STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY

33. Plaintiffs re-adopt and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 32 above.

3 https://www.malaymail.com/s/1692841/indonesia-says-situation-facing-lion-air-flightjt610-crew-not-in-flight-ma

4 https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-withheld-information-on-737-model-according-tosafety-experts-and-others-1542082575

Case: 1:20-cv-02643 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/20 Page 8 of 15 PageID #:8
9

34. At the time the Subject Aircraft left the control of Boeing, the Subject 

Aircraft was defective, not fit for its intended purposes and unreasonably

dangerous in one or more of the following particulars:

a) the subject aircraft contained an auto-dive system—

known as the MCAS—that was designed, manufactured, 

and configured to dive the aircraft toward the ground in

certain conditions against the pilot’s intentions and 

without adequate warning to the flight crew;

b) the subject aircraft was designed, manufactured, and

configured in a manner in which an auto-dive disengage

during flight created an excessive and unrealistic work 

load on the flight crew;

c) the subject aircraft lacked proper and adequate

instructions and warnings regarding the design and 

functions of its auto-dive system;

d) the subject aircraft lacked proper and adequate 

instructions and warnings and/or limitations regarding 

flight procedures for a malfunctioning auto-dive system;

e) the subject aircraft was designed without an electronic 

alert system to timely inform pilots what was 

malfunctioning and how to resolve it;

f) the subject aircraft’s auto-dive system was designed based 

on data fed to it from a single AOA sensor, though the 

aircraft was equipped with two AOA sensors, which 

created a single point of failure;

g) the subject aircraft contained defective AOA sensors;

h) despite the lack of redundancy in the design of the MCAS, 

the subject aircraft did not come with safety critical 

equipment including an AOA indicator or AOA disagree 

light; Boeing’s customers, including Lion Air, had to pay 

extra for this critical safety equipment;

i) the subject aircraft was otherwise defective by nature of 

its design, manufacture, configuration, and/or assembly in 

particulars to be determined by discovery herein.

Case: 1:20-cv-02643 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/20 Page 9 of 15 PageID #:9
10

35. As a direct and proximate result of one or more of the foregoing 

conditions, the Subject Aircraft operating as Lion Air Flight JT 610 crashed 

after takeoff in the Java Sea, and Plaintiffs’ Decedents suffered personal 

injury and death.

36. Due to the tragic death of the Decedents, Plaintiffs have been 

injured and claim all damages available to them, the estate, the survivors, 

the beneficiaries, and the heirs under applicable law, including substantial 

pecuniary losses, and grief, sorrow, mental suffering, loss of society, loss of 

companionship, love, and affection, and loss of advice.

37. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to the Illinois Wrongful 

Death Act, 740 ILCS 180/1 et seq., or such other law as the Court determines 

to be applicable under the circumstances of this case.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, as the Special Administrators of the Estates

of the Decedents, on behalf of all survivors, beneficiaries, and heirs, pray that

the Court enter judgment in their favor and against the Defendant, The 

Boeing Company, and award them all damages available under the law, their 

court costs in this matter, and such other relief as the Court deems just and 

proper. 

COUNT II

NEGLIGENCE – PRODUCTS LIABILITY

33. Plaintiffs re-adopt and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 32 above.

Case: 1:20-cv-02643 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/20 Page 10 of 15 PageID #:10
11

34. At all relevant times, Boeing owed a legal duty to assure that the 

Subject Aircraft was properly designed, manufactured, and assembled and

free from defects so as not to cause personal injury or death.

35. Boeing breached its duties under the law and was negligent in one 

or more of the following ways:

a) the subject aircraft contained an auto-dive system—known 

as MCAS—that was designed, manufactured, and configured

to dive the aircraft toward the ground in certain conditions 

against the pilot’s intentions and without adequate warning 

to the flight crew;

b) the subject aircraft was designed, manufactured, and

configured in a manner in which an auto-dive disengage

during flight created an excessive and unrealistic work load 

on the flight crew;

c) the subject aircraft lacked proper and adequate instructions 

and warnings regarding the design and functions of its autodive system;

d) the subject aircraft lacked proper and adequate instructions 

and warnings and/or limitations regarding flight procedures 

for a malfunctioning auto-dive system;

e) the subject aircraft was designed without an electronic alert 

system to timely inform pilots what was malfunctioning and 

how to resolve it;

f) the subject aircraft’s auto-dive system was designed based on 

data fed to it from a single AOA sensor, though the aircraft 

was equipped with two AOA sensors, which created a single 

point of failure;

g) the subject aircraft contained defective AOA sensors;

h) despite the lack of redundancy in the design of the MCAS, 

the subject aircraft did not come with safety critical 

equipment including an AOA indicator or AOA disagree light; 

Case: 1:20-cv-02643 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/20 Page 11 of 15 PageID #:11
12

Boeing’s customers, including Lion Air, had to pay extra for 

this critical safety equipment;

i) the subject aircraft was otherwise defective by nature of its 

design, manufacture, configuration, and/or assembly in 

particulars to be determined by discovery herein.

j) Boeing failed to conduct appropriate testing of the subject 

aircraft’s components and systems prior to delivery to Lion 

Air.

k) Boeing failed to conduct a thorough failure modes and effects 

analysis of the subject aircraft’s components and systems,

including of the MCAS.

36. As a direct and proximate result of one or more of the 

aforementioned acts of negligence by Boeing, the Subject Aircraft operating 

as Lion Air Flight JT 610 crashed after takeoff in the Java Sea and Plaintiffs’

Decedents sustained fatal injuries.

37. Due to the tragic death of the Decedents, Plaintiffs have been

injured and claims all damages available to them, the estate, the survivors, 

the beneficiaries, and the heirs under applicable law, including substantial 

pecuniary losses, and grief, sorrow, mental suffering, loss of society, loss of 

companionship, love, and affection, and loss of advice.

38. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to the Illinois Wrongful 

Death Act, 740 ILCS 180/1 et seq., or such other law as the Court determines 

to be applicable under the circumstances of this case.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, as the Special Administrators of the Estates

of the Decedents, on behalf of all survivors, beneficiaries, and heirs, pray that

the Court enter judgment in their favor and against the Defendant, The 

Case: 1:20-cv-02643 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/20 Page 12 of 15 PageID #:12
13

Boeing Company, and award them all damages available under the law, their 

court costs in this matter, and such other relief as the Court deems just and 

proper. 

COUNT III

NEGLIGENCE -- FAILURE TO WARN

33. Plaintiffs re-adopt and re-allege paragraphs 1 through 32 above.

34. At all relevant times, Boeing had a duty to inform and warn the

owners, operators, and pilots of the 737 MAX 8 series of aircraft, including 

the Subject Aircraft, of the unsafe condition likely to exist or develop by

virtue of the auto-dive feature. 

35. Boeing breached its duties under the law and was negligent in 

one or more of the following ways:

a) the subject aircraft lacked proper and adequate

instructions and warnings regarding the design and 

functions of its auto-dive system known as MCAS;

b) the subject aircraft lacked proper and adequate 

instructions and warnings and/or limitations regarding 

flight procedures for a malfunctioning auto-dive system;

c) the subject aircraft lacked an electronic alert system to 

timely inform pilots what was malfunctioning and how to 

resolve it;

d) Boeing failed to inform airlines and pilots, including the 

Lion Air and its pilots, that unlike prior 737 Models, 

pulling back on the yoke and raising the nose would NOT 

activate breakout switches to stop automated tail 

movement; and,

e) the 737 MAX 8 Flight Crew Operations Manual failed to 

appropriately alert pilots, including the pilots of the 

Case: 1:20-cv-02643 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/20 Page 13 of 15 PageID #:13
14

subject aircraft, to the design, functions, and hazards of 

Boeing’s auto-dive system and procedures for addressing 

a malfunctioning auto-dive system.

36. As a direct and proximate result of that breach, the Subject 

Aircraft operating as Lion Air Flight JT 610 crashed after takeoff in the Java 

Sea, and Plaintiff’s Decedent sustained fatal injuries.

37. Due to the tragic death of the Decedents, Plaintiffs have been 

injured and claim all damages available to them, the estate, the survivors, 

the beneficiaries, and the heirs under applicable law, including substantial 

pecuniary losses, and grief, sorrow, mental suffering, loss of society, loss of 

companionship, love, and affection, and loss of advice.

38. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to the Illinois Wrongful 

Death Act, 740 ILCS 180/1 et seq., or such other law as the Court determines 

to be applicable under the circumstances of this case.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, as the Special Administrators of the Estates

of the Decedents, on behalf of all survivors, beneficiaries, and heirs, pray that

the Court enter judgment in their favor and against the Defendant, The 

Boeing Company, and award them all damages available under the law, their 

court costs in this matter, and such other relief as the Court deems just and 

proper. 

JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs demand a jury trial on all claims and issues so triable.

Case: 1:20-cv-02643 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/20 Page 14 of 15 PageID #:14
15

Dated: April 30, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Austin Bartlett

Austin Bartlett (ARDC No. 6273427)

BartlettChen LLC

150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2800

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 624-7711

www.bartlettchenlaw.com

austin@bartlettchenlaw.com

--And--

By: /s/ Manuel von Ribbeck

Manuel von Ribbeck (ARDC No. 6230117)

Monica Ribbeck Kelly (ARDC No. 6225920)

Ribbeck Law Chartered

505 N. Lake Shore Drive, Suite 102

Chicago, Illinois 60611

(833) 883-4373

(312) 973-0146

www.ribbecklaw.com

mail@ribbecklaw.com

monicakelly@ribbecklaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Case: 1:20-cv-02643 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/30/20 Page 15 of 15 PageID #:15