260 F. Supp. 3d 185
D. Conn.2017Background
- Plaintiffs (Ester Sanches-Naek, Rashid Hamid, and their minor son) booked international travel on TAP Portugal and boarded TAP Flight 208 from JFK to Lisbon.
- While passengers were on board during embarkation, a TAP flight attendant allegedly berated Plaintiffs; Global Security and Port Authority Police were summoned and Plaintiffs were directed to disembark, causing them to miss the flight and subsequent connections.
- Plaintiffs asserted multiple Connecticut-law tort and contract claims (e.g., negligence, defamation, malicious prosecution, breach of contract, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress) and federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 1983 for discriminatory treatment.
- TAP moved to dismiss, arguing Plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by the Montreal Convention (and alternatively by the Airline Deregulation Act); oral argument was held and the motion was fully briefed.
- The district court held the events occurred during embarkation and that Plaintiffs alleged no physical injury; therefore the Montreal Convention preempted all state-law and federal civil-rights claims and dismissal with prejudice was warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether local-law claims are preempted by the Montreal Convention | Plaintiffs say they seek only economic/psychological damages (not bodily injury) and some claims are nonperformance or outside the Convention | TAP says the Montreal Convention preempts all claims arising in the course of international carriage/embarkation regardless of label | Held: Preempted — events occurred during embarkation and Montreal bars local-law claims that cannot be pursued under Article 17 |
| Whether federal civil-rights claims (§ 1981, § 1983) survive preemption | Plaintiffs contend civil-rights claims should be allowed despite Convention | TAP argues federal civil-rights claims are preempted when they arise from events within Convention scope | Held: § 1981 and § 1983 claims preempted because they arise from acts within Montreal’s substantive scope (and § 1983 fails for lack of state action) |
| Whether the incident constitutes "nonperformance" outside Convention | Plaintiffs argue removal/bump/nonperformance claims fall outside Montreal’s scope | TAP points to case law treating onboard/embarkation incidents as within Article 17 | Held: Not nonperformance — plaintiffs had boarded; courts treat such onboard removals as within embarkation scope and thus governed by Montreal |
| Whether leave to amend would cure preemption | Plaintiffs sought leave to amend | TAP argued amendment would be futile because preemption is jurisdictional/definitive on facts alleged | Held: Amendment futile; dismissal with prejudice affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd. v. Tsui Yuan Tseng, 525 U.S. 155 (Conventions preempt local-law personal-injury claims not allowed under treaty)
- King v. American Airlines, Inc., 284 F.3d 352 (2d Cir.) (Warsaw/Montreal regime is exclusive remedy for injuries in course of international embarkation)
- Eastern Airlines, Inc. v. Floyd, 499 U.S. 530 (Article 17 requires physical injury or its manifestation for carrier liability under Convention)
- Ehrlich v. American Airlines, Inc., 360 F.3d 366 (2d Cir.) (mental injury recoverable under Convention only to extent it flows from bodily injury)
- Coulter v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., 753 F.3d 361 (2d Cir.) (amendment properly denied as futile when no facts could cure legal defect)