UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. v. EVA Airways Corporation
21-2867
2d Cir.Jul 19, 2023Background
- UPS contracted with Taiwanese carrier EVA Airways to transport 24 pallets of vitamins from Chicago to South Korea (routing nonstop via Taiwan); the cargo allegedly arrived damaged.
- National Union (insurer) sued UPS in the Southern District of New York under the Montreal Convention; UPS did not assert lack of personal jurisdiction in that underlying suit.
- UPS filed a third-party complaint impleading EVA for indemnification and contribution; EVA answered asserting lack of personal jurisdiction and moved to dismiss.
- The district court granted EVA’s motion, holding UPS failed to establish personal jurisdiction under New York’s long-arm statute and that the Montreal Convention’s forum provisions govern treaty (subject-matter) jurisdiction, not domestic personal jurisdiction.
- UPS appealed; the Second Circuit considered appellate jurisdiction (treated premature notice as ripened) and affirmed the dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NY CPLR §302(a)(3) supports specific jurisdiction over EVA | UPS: Injury is NY-based because UPS incurred liability and litigation in NY (indemnity/contribution exposure) | EVA: The original injury (cargo damage) occurred outside NY; §302(a)(3) requires in-state injury | Held: No — UPS failed to allege the required in‑state injury; situs is where original event occurred, not where financial consequences are felt |
| Whether the Montreal Convention confers personal jurisdiction | UPS: Treaty lists permissible fora, so it confers personal jurisdiction on courts of those states | EVA: The Convention governs where treaty claims may be brought (treaty/subject-matter jurisdiction), not personal jurisdiction | Held: No — Articles 33/46 limit treaty jurisdiction (which states’ courts may hear the claim) but do not eliminate domestic personal‑jurisdiction requirements |
| Whether EVA consented to personal jurisdiction via the Montreal Convention or contract | UPS: By operating under the Convention or contracting with UPS, EVA consented to suit wherever a Montreal claim may be brought | EVA: Treaty provisions do not constitute consent to personal jurisdiction; no contract evidence of a forum‑selection/consent | Held: No — treaty does not provide consent to personal jurisdiction; UPS produced no contract showing a meeting of the minds consenting to jurisdiction |
| Whether EVA forfeited the personal jurisdiction defense by delay | UPS: EVA waited too long to raise PJ and thereby forfeited the defense | EVA: Timely raised PJ in its answer and promptly sought pre‑motion conference | Held: No — EVA timely asserted the defense in its answer; no forfeiture |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Canadian Pac. Airways, Ltd., 452 F.2d 798 (2d Cir. 1971) (Warsaw Convention precedent distinguishing treaty jurisdiction from domestic personal‑jurisdiction requirements)
- Whitaker v. Am. Telecasting, Inc., 261 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2001) (situs of injury is location of original event causing injury, not where resultant damages are felt)
- Porina v. Marward Shipping Co., 521 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2008) (specific jurisdiction requires claim to arise out of defendant's forum contacts)
- Sole Resort, S.A. de C.V. v. Allure Resorts Mgmt., LLC, 450 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2006) (elements required for jurisdiction under N.Y. CPLR §302(a)(3))
- Cohen v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 13 F.4th 240 (2d Cir. 2021) (Montreal Convention preempts state law and retains Warsaw Convention precedent)
- Campbell v. Air Jam., Ltd., 863 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1988) (treaty forum provisions give treaty jurisdiction but domestic jurisdictional rules still govern)