Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00882/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00882-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 310
Nature of Suit: Airplane Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Ian Greig and Sandra Greig,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

US Airways Incorporated, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-00882-PHX-SRB

ORDER 

 The Court now considers Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (“MTR”) (Doc. 18). 

I. BACKGROUND 

 This case concerns tort and contract claims brought by Plaintiffs Ian and Sandra 

Greig stemming from the crash landing of US Airways Flight 1702 departing from 

Philadelphia with the intended destination of Fort Lauderdale. (See Doc. 1, Ex. A, 

Compl. ¶¶ 1-45.) The flight never reached Fort Lauderdale due to complications during 

takeoff, which required the flight crew to perform an emergency landing back on the 

runway after the plane had ascended only twenty to forty feet. (Id. ¶¶ 9-10.) The plane 

crashed into the runway after the nose landing gear failed. (Id. ¶ 11.) Plaintiffs 

purportedly suffered emotional and physical injuries from the crash landing, bringing 

claims for negligence (Count One), negligence per se (Count Two), and breach of 

contract (Count Three) in state court against Defendants. (Id. ¶¶ 6-39.) Defendants 

subsequently removed the lawsuit to this Court based on federal question jurisdiction and 

diversity jurisdiction. (See Doc. 1, Defs.’ Notice of Removal ¶¶ 1-7.) After screening the 

Case 2:14-cv-00882-SRB Document 27 Filed 06/26/14 Page 1 of 7
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Notice of Removal, the Court ordered Defendants to show cause why the case should not 

be remanded to state court for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 5, Apr. 29, 2014 Order at 1.)1

Defendants filed a Brief in Support of Federal Jurisdiction in which they argued that 

removal was proper because “the case arises under an international treaty [(the Montreal 

Convention)] to which the United States is a party and that treaty completely preempts all 

state law claims.” (Doc. 6, Def. US Airways’ Br. in Supp. of Federal Jurisdiction/Resp. to 

Order to Show Cause (“US Airways’ Br.”) at 1.) Plaintiffs have since moved to remand 

the case to state court. (See MTR at 1-17.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS 

 “Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, a defendant may generally remove a civil action from 

state court to federal district court if the district court would have had subject matter 

jurisdiction had the action been originally filed in that court . . . .” Roth v. CHA 

Hollywood Med. Ctr., L.P., 720 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2013). Federal question 

jurisdiction exists only if a federal question is presented on the face of a properly pleaded 

complaint. Caterpillar, Inc., v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). An affirmative 

defense raising a federal question is insufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction. 

Effects Assocs., Inc. v. Cohen, 817 F.2d 72, 73 (9th Cir. 1987). The doctrine of complete 

preemption is a narrow corollary to the well-pleaded complaint rule. Balcorta v. 

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 208 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 2000). Under the 

complete preemption doctrine, “the preemptive force of some statutes is so strong that 

they completely preempt an area of state law” and give rise to federal question 

jurisdiction. Id. (citing Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 65 (1987);

 

1

 The Court noted that removal could not be based exclusively on the parties’ diversity of citizenship since Defendants’ principal place of business in Arizona makes them citizens of the forum state. (See id.); 28 U.S.C. 1441(b)(2) (a civil action cannot be 

removed on diversity grounds “if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought”). Defendants concede that removal on diversity grounds is improper here. (Doc. 14, Def. US Airways’ Br. in Opp’n to Pls.’ MTR (“US Airways’ Opp’n”) at 4 n.4.) The Court also noted that although “Defendants also claim[ed] federal question jurisdiction by asserting Plaintiffs’ injuries were sustained during an international journey[,] . . . Plaintiffs’ complaint allege[d] travel between Philadelphia, PA and Fort Lauderdale, FL [only].” (Apr. 29, 2014 Order at 1.) 

Case 2:14-cv-00882-SRB Document 27 Filed 06/26/14 Page 2 of 7
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 

U.S. 1, 24 (1983)). “The test is whether Congress clearly manifested an intent to convert 

state law claims into federal-question claims.” Holman v. Laulo-Rowe Agency, 994 F.2d 

666, 668 (9th Cir. 1993). “If so, then the cause of action necessarily arises under federal 

law and the case is removable.” Beneficial Nat. Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 9 (2003). 

 A federal question does not appear on the face of the Complaint. Defendants argue 

that removal is proper because Flight 1702 was part of a larger international journey and 

the Montreal Convention completely displaces state law claims made against air carriers 

for flights involving “international carriage,” making removal proper under the complete 

preemption doctrine. (See US Airways’ Opp’n at 4-15.) The Montreal Convention, the 

successor to the Warsaw Convention, is intended to promote uniformity in the laws 

governing air carrier liability and “applies to all international carriage of persons, 

baggage or cargo performed by aircraft.” See Convention for the Unification of Certain 

Rules for International Carriage by Air, May 28, 1999 (Montreal Convention), art. 1(1), 

reprinted in S. Treaty Doc. No. 106-45, 1999 WL 33292734. It sets forth a liability 

scheme for passenger claims for personal injury, wrongful death, loss or damage to 

baggage or goods, and damages caused by transportation delays. See id. arts. 17-19. 

Article 29 of the Montreal Convention limits actions for damages by providing: 

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 Convention without prejudice to the question as to who are the persons who have the right to bring suit and what are their respective rights. 

Id. art. 29. “[T]he Montreal Convention represent[ed] a significant shift away from a 

treaty [(the Warsaw Convention)] that primarily favored airlines to one that continues to 

protect airlines from crippling liability, but shows increased concern for the rights of 

passengers and shippers.” Weiss v. El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd., 433 F. Supp. 2d 361, 365 

(S.D.N.Y. 2006), aff’d, 309 F. App'x 483 (2d Cir. 2009). 

 The phrase “international carriage” encompasses international trips between 

Case 2:14-cv-00882-SRB Document 27 Filed 06/26/14 Page 3 of 7
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

specific places of departure and destination, regardless of any intervening domestic 

stopovers. See Montreal Convention art. 1(2) (specifying that “international carriage” 

includes trips involving a domestic flight if, “according to the agreement between the 

parties,” the domestic flight is a stopping place within a longer international journey 

between signatory nations). The Complaint refers to Plaintiffs’ residency in Ireland and 

that they are seeking to recover “a loss of expenses with regard to their vacation to the 

U.S. Virgin Islands from Northern Ireland, United Kingdom.” (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 45.) While 

the clear implication of these allegations is that Flight 1702 was part of their vacation 

travels, these allegations do not establish that US Airways had involvement in the 

overseas flights to and from Ireland. In responding to the order to show cause, 

Defendants relied on inadmissible evidence to establish that Flight 1702 was part of a 

multi-flight itinerary that started and ended in Dublin, Ireland, with domestic waypoints 

in Philadelphia and Fort Lauderdale. (See US Airways’ Br., Ex. A, Decl. of John Lyerly 

in Supp. of Defs.’ Br. Regarding Federal Jurisdiction/Resp. to OSC (“Decl. of John 

Lyerly”).)2

 Defendants therefore failed to show that the Montreal Convention applies to 

the claims asserted here. Even if they had, Defendants are unable to show that the 

Montreal Convention completely preempts state law claims to provide an exclusive 

remedy for lawsuits against air carriers involving international air transportation. 

 The Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit have not considered what, if any, 

preemptive effect the Montreal Convention has on state law claims, but this issue has 

generated a significant split in federal case law. See Gamson v. British Airways, PLC, No, 

CV 14-527(JEB), 2014 WL 2527487, at *2-3 (D.D.C. June 5, 2014) (summarizing the 

conflicting case law). The parties expend considerable effort in advancing their respective 

interpretations of El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd. v. Tsui Yuan Tseng, 525 U.S. 155 (1999), and 

 

2

 Mr. Lyerly, who is customer service/reservation manager at US Airways, stated that he reviewed the passenger reservation record for Plaintiffs’ itinerary. (Id. ¶¶ 1-2.) The declaration is inadmissible hearsay because Mr. Lyerly discusses the contents of unauthenticated records not before the Court. See Fed. R. Evid. 802. The declaration 

lacks foundation because Mr. Lyerly did not have independent personal knowledge whether Plaintiffs were onboard certain US Airways flights. See Fed. R. Evid. 602. 

Case 2:14-cv-00882-SRB Document 27 Filed 06/26/14 Page 4 of 7
- 5 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Carey v. United Airlines, 255 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2001), cases that involved the Montreal 

Convention’s predecessor, the Warsaw Convention. Both sides recognize that courts have 

regularly relied upon the case law developed under the Warsaw Convention to interpret 

analogous provisions under the Montreal Convention. See Narayanan v. British Airways, 

747 F.3d 1125, 1127 (9th Cir. 2014) (noting that the Montreal Convention incorporated 

many of the Warsaw Convention’s substantive provisions). In extending Tseng’s and 

Carey’s analysis involving the Warsaw Convention to the Montreal Convention, 

Defendants argue that the Montreal Convention completely preempts state law claims 

involving international air transportation. (US Airways’ Opp’n at 6-7.)3

 

 The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that Defendants’ interpretation of Tseng and 

Carey conflates the doctrines of complete preemption and conflict preemption, with the 

latter providing an affirmative defense, not a basis for removal. (Doc. 23, Pls.’ Mem. of 

P. & A. in Reply to US Airways’ Opp’n (“Reply”) at 6-10.) Tseng and Carey did not 

address removal issues involving complete preemption and the holdings in these cases are 

narrower than Defendants’ suggest. In Tseng, the Supreme Court held that a passenger 

could not maintain state law claims for personal injury when those claims did not satisfy 

the conditions for liability under the Warsaw Convention. 525 U.S. at 176. The Supreme 

Court did not address whether state law claims might be brought when such conditions 

for liability were met. In Carey, the Ninth Circuit held that the Warsaw Convention 

provided the exclusive remedy for claims arising out of an air carrier’s intentional or 

willful misconduct. 255 F.3d at 1051. While these cases clearly establish that the Warsaw 

Convention limited the availability of state law claims and remedies in certain settings, 

they cannot be read to interpret the Warsaw Convention as showing a clear congressional 

intent, through ratification, to convert all state law claims involving international air 

transportation into federal law claims. The Supreme Court has found complete 

 

3

 Defendants’ Opposition appears in an earlier docket entry than the Motion to Remand because the Court struck Plaintiffs’ initial filing of the Motion (Doc. 9) as not complying with the local rules governing the formatting of pleadings. (Doc. 17, June 12, 2014 Order.) 

Case 2:14-cv-00882-SRB Document 27 Filed 06/26/14 Page 5 of 7
- 6 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

preemption in other contexts expressly—for claims brought under (1) § 301 of the Labor 

Management Relations Act; (2) § 502(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security 

Act of 1974; and (3) §§ 85 and 86 of the National Bank Act. See Beneficial Nat. Bank v. 

Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 6-11 (2003). The Court rejects Defendants’ position that Tseng and 

Carey show by analogy that the Montreal Convention completely preempts state law 

claims. 

 The plain language of the Montreal Convention also runs counter to Defendants’ 

position. Article 29 of the Montreal Convention specifically contemplates that liability 

may be based on other claims under contract or tort. Montreal Convention art. 29 (“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 Convention . . .”). This language indicates that although the Montreal 

Convention might limit the remedies available for state law contract or tort claims, the 

Montreal Convention does not completely preempt those claims. The Court therefore 

finds persuasive the numerous district court opinions from within the Ninth Circuit that 

have concluded that the Montreal Convention does not completely preempt state law 

claims but in this case may be an affirmative defense. See, e.g., Jensen v. Virgin Atl., No. 

12-CV-06227 YGR, 2013 WL 1207962 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2013); Nankin v. Cont’l 

Airlines, Inc., No. CV 09-07851 MMM RZX, 2010 WL 342632 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 

2010); Serrano v. Am. Airlines, Inc., No. CV08-2256 AHM (FFMX), 2008 WL 2117239 

(C.D. Cal. May 15, 2008). 

III. CONCLUSION 

 Because Defendants have failed to establish a valid basis for removal, the Court 

remands the case to Maricopa County Superior Court. The Court expresses no opinion 

whether Defendants might be successful in asserting an affirmative defense based on the 

Montreal Convention. 

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (Doc. 18). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Defendant US Airways’ Motion 

Case 2:14-cv-00882-SRB Document 27 Filed 06/26/14 Page 6 of 7
- 7 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion for a More Definite Statement. (Doc. 11). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay 

Defendant US Airways’ Motion to Dismiss Pending a Decision in Plaintiffs’ Motion to 

Remand (Doc. 19). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED remanding the case to Maricopa County Superior 

Court. 

 Dated this 26th day of June, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-00882-SRB Document 27 Filed 06/26/14 Page 7 of 7