Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): event of an accident. The Montreal Convention is “an entirely new treaty that unifies and replaces the system of liability which derives from the Warsaw Convention.” Ehrlich v. American Airlines, Inc., 360 F.3d 366, 371 n. 4 (2d Cir.2004). The Montreal Convention “applies to all international carriage of persons, baggage or cargo performed by aircraft for reward.” Montreal Convention, art. 1(1), and preempts all federal or state-law claims falling within its scope. Montreal Convention, art. 29 (“In the carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo, any action for damages, however founded, whether under this Convention or in contract or in tort or otherwise, can only be brought subject to the conditions and such limits of liability as are set out in this Convent p.2d 361, 369 (S.D.NY.2006) (<HOLDING>); but see Bloom v. Alaska Airlines, 36 
 Holding statements: (A) holding plaintiffs breach of contract claims fell outside the scope of the montreal convention because the plain language of article 19 of the montreal convention indicates that it governs claims for delay not nonperformance (B) holding the state law claims were not preempted (C) holding plaintiffs claims were not preempted by the montreal convention because they were grounded in a cause of action for nonperformance of a contract and not delay (D) holding that the plaintiffs causes of action were preempted because their claims were premised on the existence of an erisa plan (E) holding that additional claims brought under state law are preempted by the montreal convention
Output (English): holding that the plaintiffs causes of action were preempted because their claims were premised on the existence of an erisa plan