Dochak v. Polskie Linie Lotnicze Lot S.A.
189 F. Supp. 3d 798
N.D. Ill.2016Background
- Plaintiffs are U.S. travelers who bought LOT (Polskie Linie Lotnicze LOT S.A.) tickets and experienced flight delays or cancellations, arriving at destinations late; they assert individual and class claims.
- Plaintiffs pleaded breach-of-contract claims alleging LOT’s Conditions of Carriage incorporated EU Regulation 261/2004 (EU 261) and separate claims under Article 19 of the Montreal Convention for delay.
- LOT moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) arguing (1) EU 261 claims are not judicially enforceable in U.S. courts or incorporated into the contract, (2) plaintiffs must exhaust EU remedies or defer to European courts, (3) Montreal Convention claims fail to state recoverable damages, and (4) class certification is inappropriate.
- The court found the Complaint’s quoted Conditions of Carriage language (Paragraph C 2.2, Article 16.3, Paragraph 10.2) insufficient to plausibly show a clear and specific intent to incorporate EU 261.
- The court held that plaintiffs adequately alleged recoverable economic damages under Article 19 of the Montreal Convention (e.g., out-of-pocket expenses, lost wages), so those claims survive.
- The court dismissed without prejudice the contract claims to the extent they seek relief for violations of EU 261, denied dismissal of the Montreal Convention claims, and deferred class-certification issues until after the pleadings stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EU 261 was incorporated into LOT's Conditions of Carriage | Conditions of Carriage (esp. ¶10.2 and website) show incorporation of EU 261 articles | Quoted contract language only gives notice of EU rights and does not clearly and specifically incorporate EU 261 | Dismissed EU 261-based contract claims without prejudice — the cited provisions do not plausibly show clear, specific incorporation |
| Whether U.S. courts should require exhaustion of EU remedies or defer to EU courts for EU 261 claims | Plaintiffs bring breach-of-contract claims, not actions under EU 261; exhaustion not required | Plaintiffs should first exhaust European remedies because EU 261 provides a comprehensive EU scheme and exclusive adjudication | Rejected defendant's exhaustion argument — international-exhaustion principles do not compel dismissal here; claims may proceed in U.S. courts |
| Whether primary-jurisdiction doctrine requires stay or dismissal for EU 261-related claims | Plaintiffs: contract claim; no exclusive regulatory forum requiring deference | LOT: European courts/regulatory bodies are the proper forum and have expertise | Doctrine not applicable — issue not within exclusive jurisdiction of EU agency/court and no pending EU proceedings identified |
| Whether Montreal Convention (Art. 19) claims plead recoverable damages and apply to pre-departure cancellations | Plaintiffs allege recoverable economic losses (hotel, food, lost wages, replacement travel costs) | LOT: damages alleged (stress, inconvenience) are non-compensable under Art. 19; some delays occurred pre-departure so Art. 19 may not apply | Denied motion to dismiss Article 19 claims — plaintiffs plausibly allege economic damages recoverable under the Convention; Art. 19 applies to these delays, including pre-departure cancellations |
Key Cases Cited
- Volodarskiy v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 784 F.3d 349 (7th Cir. 2015) (EU 261 not judicially enforceable outside EU courts, but did not decide incorporation-by-contract question)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards; legal conclusions not entitled to factual presumption)
- 188 LLC v. Trinity Indus., Inc., 300 F.3d 730 (Illinois law requires clear and specific intent to incorporate external document into contract)
- Rosenblum v. Travelbyus.com Ltd., 299 F.3d 657 (incorporation analysis limited to four corners of contract)
- McCauley v. City of Chicago, 671 F.3d 611 (conclusory allegations not presumed true)
- Enahoro v. Abubakar, 408 F.3d 877 (international-law exhaustion principles)
- Fischer v. Magyar Allamvasutak Zrt., 777 F.3d 847 (recognition of exhaustion requirement in certain international-law contexts)
- Arsberry v. Illinois, 244 F.3d 558 (doctrine of primary jurisdiction explained)
- Sompo Japan Ins., Inc. v. Nippon Cargo Airlines Co., Ltd., 522 F.3d 776 (background on Montreal Convention replacing Warsaw system)
- Wolgel v. Mexicana Airlines, 821 F.2d 442 (Warsaw Convention does not cover "bumping"; inapposite to delay claims)