Krutsik v. Frontier Airlines
1:15-cv-03430
N.D. Ill.May 19, 2017Background
- Two sets of passengers sued Frontier under the Montreal Convention for damages from flight delays/cancellation: the Tarkovs (March 2015 cancellation; overnight hotel expense; lost one day of work) and the Adlers (October 2015 multi-hour delay aboard the plane; alleged lost work and missed prepaid excursions).
- Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint pleaded a mix of economic and non-economic harms (lost wages, hotel/food/transportation, “inconvenience,” “anxiety,” “frustration,” etc.).
- Frontier moved to dismiss non-economic damages and to sever misjoined plaintiffs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21.
- Court held Montreal Convention permits recovery for economic losses from delay but not for purely emotional/non-economic damages; plaintiffs conceded purely emotional damages are not recoverable.
- Court concluded the Tarkov and Adler claims were misjoined (different flights, times, facts, and harms) and severed the Adler plaintiffs; non-economic claims were dismissed with prejudice.
- Court ordered procedural steps: Adlers must refile as a new case (with cover-sheet notation and judge assignment), Tarkovs to file a revised complaint omitting Adler-only allegations, and scheduled a status hearing; admonished plaintiffs’ counsel for sloppy pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Montreal Convention permits non-economic (emotional) damages for delay | Plaintiffs argued their alleged "inconvenience" damages are economic (nexus to financial harm) and thus recoverable | Frontier argued non-economic/emotional damages are not recoverable under the Convention | Court held non-economic/emotional damages are not recoverable and dismissed those claims with prejudice |
| Scope of "inconvenience" damages under Montreal | Plaintiffs: inconvenience with nexus to financial injury is recoverable | Frontier: inconvenience claims are purely emotional unless tied to distinct economic loss | Court required that inconvenience damages be tied to concrete economic harms; plaintiffs failed to make those connections |
| Whether plaintiffs were properly joined under Rule 20 or should be severed under Rule 21 | Plaintiffs claimed all were subjected to delays/cancellations on Frontier flights and thus properly joined | Frontier argued the claims arise from separate transactions (different flights, times, facts, personnel) and are misjoined | Court found misjoinder and severed the Adlers from the Tarkovs under Rule 21 |
| Post-dismissal procedural handling (refiling, amended pleadings, and class allegations) | Plaintiffs sought to proceed as pleaded and maintain class allegations | Frontier sought severance and challenged class allegations (later) | Court ordered Adlers to refile separately, Tarkovs to file a revised complaint after status hearing; signaled skepticism about class viability across multiple flights |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard; facial plausibility requirement)
- Szabo v. Bridgeport Machines, Inc., 249 F.3d 672 (motion to dismiss tests legal sufficiency of a pleading)
- United Central Bank v. Davenport Estate LLC, 815 F.3d 315 (court views well-pleaded facts in plaintiffs' favor on Rule 12(b)(6) motion)
- Campbell v. Air Jamaica, Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165 (inconvenience damages require pleadings showing harm from inconvenience)