103 A.D.3d 158
N.Y. App. Div.2012Background
- Passengers confined on a JetBlue aircraft on the JFK tarmac for about 11 hours with limited amenities and no access to terminal facilities, allegedly suffering physical and emotional harm.
- JetBlue removed/then remanded the case from federal court on Montreal Convention standing concerns; plaintiff’s amended complaint dropped the Convention claims.
- Supreme Court of New York, Queens County, held ADA preempts certain torts tied to airline services and denied or granted dismissal on others; physical-injury negligence survived preemption scrutiny.
- Plaintiff sought class certification; defendant opposed on several grounds; issues included whether class certification was premature and whether renewal/rearguard motions could rely on e-filed papers.
- In 2010–2011, the court denied renewal to renew/reargue class certification for procedural reasons (CPLR 2214(c)); appellate review followed for both the preemption ruling and the renewal decision.
- Court ultimately affirmed the preemption rulings on most tort claims and sustained the procedural denial of renewal, with one branch relating to breach of contract not preempted and not addressed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA preemption of state-law tort claims | Confinement not related to airline services; claims not within ADA scope | Claims relate directly to airline services and are preempted | Preempted (tort claims tied to services) |
| Negligence claims and physical injury | Some negligence claims should escape preemption if tied to personal injury | ADA preemption applies to non-physical-injury torts as to service provision | Preemption applies to non-physical-injury negligence; physical-injury distinction not adopted here |
| False imprisonment claim under ADA | Confinement on the aircraft was not a service-related action | Confinement directly implicates airline service as part of onboard provision | Preempted as service-related |
| Fraud and deceit claim under ADA | Misstatements about alternatives to travel not tied to service provision | Statements pertain to airline service provision during delays | Preempted |
| Renewal/reargue class-certification procedure (CPLR 2214) | May rely on references to e-filed docket entries; need not file full paper copies | CPLR 2214 requires complete copies; e-filing rules do not permit sole docket-entry references | Denied on procedural grounds; complete papers required; appeal limited as to leave-to-reargue |
| Breach of contract preemption by ADA | Contract claims may survive if not framed as service-related | Contract claims are tied to service and thus preempted | Not preempted; proper denial of preemption as to contract |
Key Cases Cited
- Air Transp. Assn., of Am., Inc. v. Cuomo, 520 F.3d 218 (2d Cir. 2008) (defined broad ‘service’ scope under ADA preemption)
- Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (U.S. 1992) (ADA preemption: broad connection to prices, routes, or services)
- American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219 (U.S. 1995) (ADA preemption limits; self-imposed airline undertakings not fully shielded)
- Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transp. Assn., 552 U.S. 364 (U.S. 2008) (preemption where state rules affect carrier services; substantial federal interest)
- Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 1995) (limits of preemption; injuries not arising from operation/maintenance of aircraft)
- Travel All Over the World, Inc. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 73 F.3d 1433 (7th Cir. 1996) (non-service-related tort claims not preempted; some service-related claims preempted)
- Smith v. Comair, Inc., 134 F.3d 254 (4th Cir. 1998) (false imprisonment and related claims; preemption depending on boarding context)
- Rombom v. United Air Lines, Inc., 867 F. Supp. 214 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (three-part test for ADA preemption: service, direct vs incidental, necessity of tortious conduct)
- Chrissafis v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 940 F. Supp. 1292 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (reconciled divergent ADA preemption outcomes; service-related vs not)