Bower v. Egyptair Airlines Co.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 20190
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Colin Bower (U.S. citizen) obtained sole legal custody of two minor children by Massachusetts divorce decree that prohibited the mother, Mirvat El‑Nady, from removing the children from Massachusetts.
- In August 2009 El‑Nady drove the children to JFK, purchased one‑way cash tickets on EgyptAir, presented Egyptian passports (no U.S. entry visas), and flew with the children to Cairo, where she sought and briefly obtained an Egyptian custody order.
- Bower filed suit in Massachusetts state court against El‑Nady and EgyptAir asserting interference with custodial relations, negligence (failure to investigate red flags at check‑in/boarding), negligent infliction of emotional distress, and loss of filial consortium; EgyptAir removed to federal court.
- District court found diversity jurisdiction (El‑Nady domiciled in Egypt; children remained domiciliaries of Massachusetts via Bower), granted summary judgment for EgyptAir on merits (no actual knowledge; no duty to investigate).
- On appeal the First Circuit affirmed dismissal but on different grounds: it held Bower’s common‑law claims challenging EgyptAir’s ticketing/check‑in/boarding procedures are preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA), 49 U.S.C. § 41713.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject‑matter jurisdiction (domicile of El‑Nady) | El‑Nady is a fugitive; her pre‑flight Massachusetts domicile should control, destroying diversity | El‑Nady established domicile in Egypt (presence + intent); diversity exists | Court: El‑Nady domiciled in Egypt; federal diversity jurisdiction proper |
| Domicile of children (for diversity) | Children lived with El‑Nady in Egypt so share her domicile, defeating diversity | Children’s domicile follows parent with lawful custody (Bower in MA) | Court: Children domiciled in Massachusetts (Bower had sole legal custody) |
| ADA preemption of tort claims (ticketing/check‑in/boarding) | Claims are ordinary torts; do not meaningfully regulate airline services or threaten federal deregulation goals | Airline services (ticketing/check‑in/boarding) are preempted subjects under ADA; state tort duties would regulate airline operations | Court: Claims sufficiently "related to" airline service and are preempted by ADA; dismissal affirmed |
| Merits (actual knowledge/duty to investigate) | EgyptAir knew or should have known via red flags (cash last‑minute tickets, different surnames, no U.S. visas) and owed a duty to investigate | EgyptAir lacked actual knowledge and owed no duty to investigate custody disputes at check‑in/boarding | Court: did not reach merits because ADA preemption disposes of claims; preemption affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowe v. N.H. Motor Transp. Ass'n, 552 U.S. 364 (2008) (broad reading of "service" and preemption where state rules would impose delivery/verification obligations on carriers)
- Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (1992) (ADA preemption intended to prevent a patchwork of state regulation that undermines federal deregulation)
- DiFiore v. American Airlines, Inc., 646 F.3d 81 (1st Cir. 2011) (ADA preemption analysis and treatment of non‑economic service regulation post‑Rowe)
- Brown v. United Airlines, Inc., 720 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2013) (confirmed common‑law claims can be "other provision having the force and effect of law" and framed the two‑part ADA preemption test)
- Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219 (1995) (distinguishes state consumer‑protection regulation from suits enforcing an airline’s own contractual promises)
- Taj Mahal Travel v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 164 F.3d 186 (3d Cir. 1998) (analyzes when common‑law torts have a regulatory effect that triggers ADA preemption)