Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03398/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03398-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 310
Nature of Suit: Airplane Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEONILA M. JAVIER and PEDRO JAVIER,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 09-03398 JSW

ORDER (1) DENYING

DEFENDANT’S

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO

CONTINUE HEARING AND (2)

DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO STRIKE

Now before the Court is the administrative motion filed by Defendant to continue

Plaintiffs’ motion to strike and Plaintiffs’s motion to strike Defendant’s affirmative defenses. 

The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to continue the motion to strike. Although Defendant

apparently intends to raise the same issues addressed in Plaintiffs’ motion to strike in a motion

for summary judgment, Defendant has not identified any questions of fact which would

preclude the Court from adjudicating these issues as a matter of law pursuant to Plaintiffs’

motion to strike. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike is now fully briefed and ripe for decision. The

Court finds that this matter is appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matter

is deemed submitted. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Accordingly, the hearing set for April 30, 2010 is

VACATED. Having carefully reviewed the parties’ papers, considered their arguments and the

relevant authority, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to

strike.

Case 3:09-cv-03398-JSW Document 51 Filed 04/26/10 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 The Montreal Convention was signed on May 28, 1999 and entered into force on

November 4, 2003. See Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International

Carriage by Air, May 28, 1999, reprinted in S. Treaty Doc. No. 106-45.

2

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action filed by plaintiffs Leonila Javier and Pedro Javier,

Leonila Javier’s son, against defendant Philippinne Airlines, Inc. (“Philippinne Airlines”). 

Leonila Javier seeks damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained while on a Philippine

Airlines flight from Vancouver, Canada to Manila in the Phillippines on October 15, 2008. 

Pedro Javier was on the same flight and seeks to recover for emotional distress he allegedly

suffered from observing his mother’s injury. Both Leonila and Pedro Javier’s claims are

brought under the Montreal Convention.1 

Plaintiffs move to strike the affirmative defenses asserted against Pedro Javier’s claims. 

The Court shall discuss additional facts as necessary in the analysis.

ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard on Motion to Strike.

“The court may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any

redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous material.” Fed. R. Civ. P. (12)(f). Immaterial 

matter “is that which has no essential or important relationship to the claim for relief or the

defenses being pleaded.” Cal. Dept. of Toxic Substance Control v. ALCO Pacific, Inc., 217 F.

Supp. 2d 1028, 1032 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Impertinent

material “consists of statements that do not pertain, or are not necessary to the issues in

question.” Id. Motions to strike are regarded with disfavor because they are often used as

delaying tactics and because of the limited importance of pleadings in federal practice. 

Colaprico v. Sun Microsystems Inc., 758 F. Supp. 1335, 1339 (N.D. Cal. 1991). “[M]otions to

strike should not be granted unless it is clear that the matter to be stricken could have no

possible bearing on the subject matter of the litigation.” Colaprico v. Sun Microsystems Inc.,

758 F. Supp 1335, 1339 (N.D. Cal. 1991). Ultimately, the decision as to whether to strike

allegations is a matter within the Court’s discretion. Id.

Case 3:09-cv-03398-JSW Document 51 Filed 04/26/10 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

B. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike.

Plaintiffs move to strike Philippine Airlines’ affirmative defenses that this Court does

not have jurisdiction under the Montreal Convention to hear Pedro Javier’s claim, that Pedro

Javier did not suffer “bodily injury” required under the Montreal Convention, and that Pedro

Javier’s bystander claim should be dismissed as preempted.

There is no dispute that Plaintiffs’ claims in this action are governed by the Montreal

Convention. There is also no dispute that an action under the Montreal Convention can be

commenced in the “principal and permanent residence” of the injured passenger pursuant to

Article 33(2) of the Convention, as long as the air carrier does business there directly or

indirectly. Although Leonila Javier alleges that her “principal and permeant residence” is in

Alameda County, Pedro Javier has admitted that his “principal and permanent residence” is in

Canada and that if his claim is analyzed individually, there is no basis for jurisdiction over his

claims in this action under the Montreal Convention. (Mot. at 3.) 

The Montreal Convention provides the exclusive remedy for injuries or damage to

individuals incurred on board international flights. See Montreal Convention Art. 29; see also

El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd. v. Tsui Yuan Tseng, 525 U.S. 155, 160-61 (1999). If there is no

jurisdiction under the treaty, then the Court must dismiss the matter for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. See Hornsby v. Lufthansa German Airlines, 593 F. Supp. 2d 1132, 1135-36 (C.D.

Cal. 2009); see also Sopcak v. Northern Mountain Helicopter Serv., 52 F.3d 817, 818-19 (9th

Cir. 1995).

Plaintiffs argue that this Court may assert jurisdiction of Pedro Javier’s claims because there is

clearly jurisdiction under the Convention over claims arising out of Leonila Javier’s injury. 

Plaintiffs contend that it would not make sense to hear their claims separately. In support of

this argument, Plaintiffs rely on authority finding jurisdiction over wrongful death claims in the

jurisdiction where the decedent could have brought a claim. However, in wrongful death

claims, the plaintiffs are suing for harm to the deceased passenger. In contrast, here, Pedro

Javier is suing to recover for harm, emotional injuries, to himself. Therefore, the Court finds

cases addressing jurisdiction under the treaty in wrongful death claims inapplicable.

Case 3:09-cv-03398-JSW Document 51 Filed 04/26/10 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

 Because the Court finds that it has no jurisdiction over Pedro Javier’s claims, the

Court need not address whether Pedro Javier can state a claim for bystander injury under the

Montreal Convention.

4

Alternatively, Plaintiffs argue that this Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction

over Pedro Javier’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. In support of this argument, Plaintiffs

rely on authority in which courts declined to exercise jurisdiction under the treaty based on the

forum non convenient doctrine. However, again, the Court finds such authority inapplicable. 

Courts applying a doctrine to decline to exercise jurisdiction does not provide authority for

expanding jurisdiction under the Montreal Convention based on a federal statute. Cf. Poddar v.

Singapore Airlines, Ltd., 2004 WL 5642000, *2 (C.D. Cal. July 8, 2004) (finding that where the

Warsaw Convention applies to the action before the court, the court cannot exercise “treaty”

jurisdiction unless jurisdiction is proper under the treaty itself). Plaintiffs’ reliance on Albingia

Versicherungs A.G. v. Schenker Intern. Inc., 344 F.3d 931, 936 (9th Cir. 2003) is misplaced. In

Albingia, the court affirmed the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1367

over state-law claims. Id. Plaintiff has not cited to, nor has the Court found, any authority

providing that this Court may exercise jurisdiction over a claim under the Montreal Convention

when jurisdiction under the treaty is lacking. In the absence of such authority, the Court finds

that it cannot exercise jurisdiction of Pedro Javier’s claims under the treaty. Therefore, the

Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion to strike and dismisses Pedro Javier’s claims.2

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Philippine

Airlines’ affirmative defenses and DISMISSES Pedro Javier’s claims for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 26, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-03398-JSW Document 51 Filed 04/26/10 Page 4 of 4