Gennadiy Volodarskiy v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
784 F.3d 349
7th Cir.2015Background
- Plaintiffs (U.S. residents) were passengers on Delta flights departing from Heathrow and Paris that were significantly delayed or cancelled; they sought compensation under EU Regulation 261/2004 ("EU 261").
- EU 261 prescribes fixed compensation (€250–€600) for certain cancellations and (as interpreted by the ECJ) long delays, and requires Member States to designate National Enforcement Bodies (NEBs) and permits passengers to seek redress in national courts.
- Plaintiffs initially alleged breach of contract, claiming EU 261 was incorporated into Delta’s contract of carriage; that theory failed and was abandoned on appeal.
- Plaintiffs then asserted a direct claim under EU 261 in U.S. federal court (CAFA diversity jurisdiction), seeking class relief rather than using EU enforcement mechanisms in the U.K. or France.
- The district court dismissed, holding EU 261 is not enforceable in courts outside EU Member States; the Seventh Circuit affirmed on that ground and did not need to resolve ADA preemption or other defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EU 261 claims can be enforced in U.S. courts | Volodarskiy/Cohen: EU 261 creates a private right that plaintiffs can vindicate directly in U.S. courts | Delta: Enforcement is limited to NEBs or courts of EU Member States (no designation of U.S. courts) | Court: Not enforceable outside EU Member State courts or bodies; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether EU 261 was incorporated into Delta’s contract of carriage | Plaintiffs originally: contract incorporates EU 261 | Delta: EU 261 not incorporated; ADA preemption would bar implied incorporation | Plaintiffs conceded on appeal; contract claim abandoned |
| Whether ADA preempts a direct EU 261 claim | Plaintiffs: claim viable irrespective of ADA | Delta: ADA preempts state-law or foreign-law claims that would regulate airlines | Court: Did not reach preemption because dismissal on forum/enforcement ground was dispositive |
| Whether international comity/forum non conveniens required dismissal | Plaintiffs: U.S. forum appropriate; sought class procedure | Delta: comity and forum non conveniens favor EU fora | Court: Not decided as primary ground; concerns noted but dismissal rested on EU 261 enforcement scheme |
Key Cases Cited
- Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074 (7th Cir.) (appellate standard of review: de novo)
- McCoy v. Iberdrola Renewables, Inc., 760 F.3d 674 (7th Cir.) (choice-of-law principle for federal diversity cases)
- Fischer v. Magyar Államvasutak Zrt., 777 F.3d 847 (7th Cir.) (forum non conveniens considerations)
- Clerides v. Boeing Co., 534 F.3d 623 (7th Cir.) (forum non conveniens and avoidance of foreign-law application issues)