Pu rsuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n shou ld n ot * be publ ishe d an d is not precede nt ex cept und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE U NI TED S TATES COU RT OFAPPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 20227

NJ I DEKA E. M UON EKE P l a i n ti ff-A p p ell a n t v. C O M P A G N IE N A T IO N A L E A IR F R A N C E al so kn ow n as, Soci et e A i r Fran ce D efen da n t

- A pp el l ee

A p p ea l f

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ct of T exas N o. 4: 05- C V

- 4289

B ef ore W IE N E R , D E N N IS, an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui t Ju dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * P l ai n t i f f

- ap pel l an t N j i dek a M u on eke c l ai m s t h at t h e defen da n t

- ap pel l ee Com pa gni e N at i o nal e Ai r Fr anc e i s l i ab l e f o r i t e m s of

h er l ugg ag e l o s t dur i ng in te r n a tio n a l ca r r ia g e . In t h e p r io r a p p e a l in th is ca s e , M u o n ek e v . C o mp ag n ie Nati on ale A i r Fran ce (M u on ek e I) , w e revers ed th e d i st ri ct court ’ s grant of
sum m ary j u dg m en t t o A i r Fran ce b e cau se w e f ou n d that a genu i n e i ssue of
m ater i al fact exi st ed concern i n g w h et h er M u on eke h ad prov id e d n o t i ce of her United States Court of A pp eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma y 12, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 20227

247F . App’x 570 (5th Ci r. 200 7) (per curi am) (u npubli shed). Wen ote tha t th ere are 1 seriou s que stion s conc erni ng the appropriate ness of federa l ju risdict ion in this case, butou r prio r op inio ne x pl ic it lyr u le d ont h a t q u es ti on , id. at57 1, a nd we do not indu lg e i n “perpet ual re-ex amin atio n of pre cisely the same i ssue o f subje ct ma tter ju risdict ion .” Freev. Ab bott Lab s., I nc. , 1 6 4F

. 3 d2 7 0 , 2 7 2

- 7 3 ( 5 t hC i r . 1 9 9 9 ); s e eChrist iansonv. C oltI ndu s. Operat ing Cor p. , 48 6 U .S. 80 0, 8 16 n.5 (198 8). We ther eforedo not address the well-pl eade d co mplai nt ru le , see Gra b le & Son s Me t al Pro ds. , I n c. v. Dar u e En

g ’g &Mfg. , 545 U. S. 3 0 8 , 3 1 5 ( 2 0 0 5 ); Merrell Dow P

harms. In c. v. Tho mpson , 4 7 8U

. S

. 8 0 4 , 8 1 7( 1 9 8 6 ); A m. We ll W ork s C o. v . Layn e &Bowler C

o. , 2 4 1 U. S. 2 5 7 , 2 6 0 ( 1 9 1 6); Lou isville &Nash ville R.R . v. Mo tt ley , 21 1 U .S. 1 4 9 , 1 5 3 -5 4( 1 9 0 8), o r co mp le tep re em pt io n , see Bern hard v. W hit ney Nat’

l Bank , 52 3 F .3d 5 46, 5 5 3 ( 5 th C ir

. 2 0 0 8), b ec a u se we ca n n ot sa y th a t a“ glari n ge rr or” oc cu rr edi nt h isc a se . Free , 1 6 4F .3 d a t 2 7 3
. 2 l oss t o A i r Fran ce. Th i s app eal ari ses ou t of t h e di st ri ct court ’ s proceedi n gs on 1
r e m and , w hi c h c ul m i nat e d i n a j udg m e nt i n fav o r o f M uo ne ke

. W e r e ve r s e t he di st ri ct court ’ s j u dg m e n t in p a rt an d rend er j u dg m en t f or M u on eke; w e af

f i rm in p a r t; w e re v e r s e a n d re m a n d in p a r t. I . F A CT S A ND P ROC E E DI NGS M u on eke tr aveled f

rom H ou st on , T exas to L agos, N i geri a on an A i r Fran ce f l i gh t in 2 004
. D u ri n g a cha n ge of p l an es i n P ari s, she w as f orced t o check h er carry- on bag on board t h e new ai rcr af t at t h e i n si st en ce of

A i r Fran ce em pl oyees. W h en M u on eke u n pa ck e d that bag aft er her arr i val i n L agos, she di scovered th a t i t em s w ere m i ssi n g, i n cl u di n g a digi t al cam era an d $9 00 i n cash. A f t er a benc h t r i al , t he di st r i c t c our t c onc l uded t hat M uoneke’ s l os s t ot al ed $1 , 242. 79,
a sum that n ei t her par t y c ont es t s on appea l

. The c our t hel d t hat A i r Franc e w as l i able f or t h e l oss becau se the ai rl i n e ha d a “r espon si bi l i t [ y] t o safel y t ran sport th e b a gg a ge . ” That w as not , howev e r , t he end o f t he m at t e r , b e c aus e c l ai m s a r i s i ng o ut of dam age to bagga ge du ri n g carri age aboa rd i n t erna t i on al f l i gh t s are govern ed by t reat i es that str u ct u re the carri er’ s l i abil i t y an d i m pose m on et ary l i m i t s onN o. 08- 20227

3 t hat l i ab i l i t y. The di s t r i c t c o ur t det e r m i ne d t hat und e r t he W ar s aw C o nve nt i o n, A i r Franc e w as ent i t l ed t o l i m i t i t s l i abi l i t y f or M uoneke’ s baggag e t o 1 7 s pec i al d r a w in g rig h ts (“S D R s ”) m u ltip lie d b y th e w e ig h t o f th e “d a m a g e d b a g g a g e ” in ki l ogr am s. H avi ng s et t l ed on l i abi l i t y, t he c or r ec t f or m ul a f

or t he m onet ar y c ap
on l i abil i t y, an d the qu an t u m o f d a m ages, t h e di st ri ct court t h en deter m i n ed t h at one SD R w as equ i valent t o $1. 58 at t h e t i m e of t ri al an d that t h e w ei gh t of t h e l u gga ge w as 5 ki l ogram s. A ccor di n gl y, i t aw arded M u on eke $1 34. 30. I n so d o in g , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a p p e a r s to h a v e re je c te d M u o n e k e ’ s a r g u m e n ts th a t A ir F ran ce w as at fau l t , rat h er t h an m erel y st ri ct l y l i able f or her l oss an d that her baggag e q ual i f

i ed as c ar r y- on, r at her t han chec ked l uggage. Sh e a ss er t ed t hat i f ei t her w er e t he c a se, a hi gher dam ages c ap s houl d appl y under t he W ar sa w C onvent i on. The di st r i c t c our t al so r ej ec t ed A i r France ’ s ar gum ent t hat i t had
n o li a b i l i ty a t allbe ca u se it s con tract of ca rriag e ex p ress l y d i sclaim ed l i a b i l i ty fo r d a m a g e to ca m e r a s , e le c tr o n ic s , a n d ca s h in ch e c k e d b a g g a g e . M u on eke then t i m el y ap pl i ed f or an aw ard of

a tto rn e y s’ fees and cos t s. Th e di st r i c t c our t c onc l uded t hat t he f ee am ount r eques t ed b y M uoneke w as
reasona bl e, bu t A i r Fran ce obj ect ed t o an y aw ard of fees, argu i n g t h at t h ey are
n o t r e c o v e r a b le

. A fte r s u p p le m e n ta l b r ie fin g , t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a g r e e d w ith A ir F ran ce an d decl i n ed t o aw ard f ees, bu t di d n ot rul e on M u on eke’ s app l i cat i on f or
c o s ts
. T h is tim e ly a p p e a l fo llo w e d

.N o. 08- 20227

Grillett a v. Lex ing to n In s. C o. , 558 F.3d 35 9, 364(5th Cir. 20 09) (per curi am) (i nter nal 2 q u ot a ti onmark s o mi tt ed). See L ubk e v. Cit

y of Arlingto n , 4 5 5 F .3 d 4 8 9 , 4 9 8( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 6); S t ee l C oi ls, I n c. v . 3 M/V Lak e Marion , 3 3 1 F .3 d 4 2 2 , 4 3 5 (5 th C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ) (C OGSA l im it a ti ono f li ab ility); Hamman v. S w. Gas Pipeline, In c. , 8 3 2 F .2 d 5 5 , 5 7( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 8 7 ) ( de ci de d b yaqu oru m) (p erc u ri a m) (av a il ab ilityo f a tt or n ey s’f ee s)

. Conve ntio n for the Unifi cati on of C erta in Ru les for I nter nat ion al Carria geby Airart. 4 1 , ¶ 1 , Ma y2 8 , 1 9 9 9 , I C A O Do c. 9 7 4 0 , re p r i n t e di nS. T RE ATY D OC . N O . 106 -45, 199 9 WL 332 927 34 (200 0) [h erei naft er Montreal C onv enti on] (“Th is C onv enti on appli es toall inte rn a ti on a l ca rria g e o f pe rs on s, b a g g a g e o r ca rgo pe rf or me d byai rc raftf

orr ew a rd .” ); id. art. 55 & ¶ 1 (“This Conventio n shallprevailove r any r ules whic h appl y to inter natio nal carr iage by air: 1. betwee n State s Pa rties to this Conve ntio n by vi rtue of those State s commonly bei ng Pa rtyto (a) the Con vent ion for t he Unificat ion of C ert ain RulesRe latin

g toI nt ernat ional C a r r i a gebyAir Signed at Warsa w on 12 October19 29 (here inafter call ed th e W arsaw C onv enti on)

. . . .” ). 4 II. A N A L Y S IS 1. S t an d ard of

R evi ew “T h e stand ard of

revi ew f

or a bench t ri al i s w el l est abli shed : f i n di n gs of fact are revi ew ed f

or c l ear err or and l egal i ssues are r evi ew ed d e nov o. ” W h i ch 2
c onventi on g ov er ns Ai r Franc e’ s l i m i t at i on o f l i abi l i t y and w het her t hat go ve r ni ng c o nve nt i o n pr o vi de s a b as i s o n whi c h t o a w ar d a t t o r ne ys ’ fe e s a nd
c o s ts to M u o n e k e a r e q u e s tio n s o f la w , w h ic h w e re v ie w d e n o v o . 3 2
. A n a lys is A

. A pp l i cable C on venti on O n a ppe al , M uo ne ke c l ai m s t hat t he di s t r i c t co ur t er r e d by a ppl yi ng t he W ar s aw C o nve nt i o n’ s l i ab i l i t y c ap , ra t he r t han t hat o f t he M o nt r e al Conv e nt i o n. W e a gr ee . By i t s t er m s, t he M ont r eal C onvent i on s uper se des t he W ar sa w C on ven t i on an d gov erns A i r Fran ce’ s l i abil i t y i n t h i s c ase. T h e U n i t ed S t ates 4 S en a te ratif

i ed the M on trea l C on ve n ti on on S ep tem b er 5 , 20 0 3 , an d the treatyN o. 08- 20227

Eh rlich v. Am. Airlin es, I nc. , 360 F.3 d 36 6, 3 72 (2d C ir. 2 004) (cit ing P ress Statemen t, 5 Unit ed S tates Department of State , R atifi cati on of th e 1 999Mon trea l C onv ention (Sept. 5, 200 3); Me dia Note, Unit ed S tates Department of State, EntryIntoForce of the 199 9 Mo ntre al C onv enti on( No v . 4 , 2 0 0 3 ))

.

CompareMon trea l C onv enti on art. 22, ¶ 2 (“In the carri ag e of bag ga ge , the liabil ity 6 of th e carrierinth e ca se of destruc tion , lo ss, damag e o r de lay is l im ited to 100 0 S pecial Dra wi n g R igh ts fo r ea chp a sse n g er. . . . ”) , and id. art. 17, ¶ 4 (“Unle ss oth erwise specifi ed, i n th isC onv enti ont h e te rm‘b a g g a g e’me a n s b othc h ec ke d b a g g a g e a n d u n ch ec ke d b a g g a g e. ”) , wi thC onv enti on for the Unifi cati on of C erta in Ru les Rel atin g to I nter nat ion al Tra nsportation byAira r t
. 22, ¶ 2 Oct. 12, 192 9, 4 9 S tat. 300 0, T .S. No. 876(19 34) [here inafter Warsa w Conve ntio n] (“ Inth e tr anspo rtati on of ch ecked bag ga geand of goods, the liabil ityof the carri er sh a llb e l im it edto asumof [1 7SDR s] perkilo gra m.” ), and id. ¶ 3(“A s reg ards obj ects o f whic h th e pa sse n g ert a ke s c h a rg e h im se lf t h e li ab ilityof th e carrie r sh a llbeli mi te d to[33 2 S DR s] pe r pa sse n g er .” ).

Mo n tr eal C onv enti ona rt
. 2 6
. 7 5 entered i nt o f

or c e o n N ove m ber 4, 2003. The dam age t o M uoneke’ s baggag e 5
oc c urr ed s om et i m e dur i ng t he t w o- day pe r i od o f N ove m ber 3 0

- Dec e m b e r 1, 2004,
m or e t han a year af t er t he M ont r eal C onvent i on e nt ered i nt o f or c e. That
conven t i on ’ s l i abil i t y cap ( 100 0 S D R s per passeng er f or ba g g a g e cl ai m s) t h eref ore app l i es, not t h e W arsaw C on ven t i on ’ s c ap ( 17 S D R s per ki l ogram of d a m a g e d b a g g a g e for ch e ck e d lu g g a g e ). 6 A i r Fran ce’ s f

i rst coun t erargum en t — t h at t h e a p p li cabl e contr act of
ca rr iage l i m i t ed M u on eke’ s r ecovery t o 17 S D R s per ki l ogram — i s m eri t l ess. T h e co n tr a c t o f c a r r ia g e in fa c t in c o r p o r a te d th e M o n tr e a l C o n v e n tio n , A r tic le 2 6 of w h i ch states th a t “[ a ]ny p rov i sion ten d i n g t o reli ev e th e ca rrier of l i a b i l i ty
or t o f i x a l ow er l i m i t t han t hat w hi c h i s l ai d dow n i n t hi s C onvent i on s hal l be nul l and vo i d. ” Ai r Franc e w as t her ef or e no t ent i t l ed to c ap i t s l i abi l i t y at 17 7 S D R s per ki l ogram w h en , as here, such a cap l i m i t s t h e carr i er’ s l i abil i t y t o l ess th a n 1 0 0 0 S D R s p e r p a s s e n g e r .N o. 08- 20227

I d. art. 1 7, ¶ 2 (“Th e carrie r is liabl e for damagesustaine d in case o f destru ctionor 8 loss o f, or of da mag e to , ch ecked bag ga ge upon conditiononlyth at the ev ent whichca used the destruc tion , loss or damag e took plac e on boa rd th e aircraft ordu rin g anyperiod withinwhi ch th e ch ec ke d ba g g a g e wa s inth e ch a rg e of t h e ca rrie r. ”) ; seeS. T RE AT Y D OC . N O . 106 -45, 199 9 WL 332 927 34, at *17(20 00) (ex p la natoryn ote) (“Pa ragraph2 [of Articl e 1 7 o f th e Montrea l Convent ion] mak es the carr ier liable fo r des tru cti on, loss , or da mage to chec ke d baggage caus ed by an event tak ing plac e on boar d the aircra ft or while the baggage was in the charge of th e carri er. Th e carri er may avoid liabil ity to the extentth at it prov es th e da mag e re sulte d from th e i nhe rentdefe c t , q ua li t y, or vice of th e ch ecked bag ga ge . . . . Thus, for c hecked bag ga ge , as und er the Warsa w Co nv enti on and its r ela ted i nstru ments, the carri er i s stric tly li ab lef ord a ma g es , subj ec t tolim it edsp ec if ie d de fe n se s.” ). Montre al Conve ntio n art. 27 (“Noth ing contain ed i n this Conve ntio n shal l pr ev ent 9 the carri er fr om re fusin g to e nterinto a nycontract of c arriag e, fro m waiving any defen ces av ail abl e u nder the Conve ntio n, o r fro m layi ngdown condition s w hic h do not c onfl ict with the pr ovis io n s o f th isC onv enti on .” ).

We do n ot a ddress a ll limit atio n-of-l iab ili t y question s un der the Montre al 10 Conve ntio n today , onlyth ose pr esent ed b y the carri ag e re lati onsh ip at i ssue
6 A i r Fran ce’ s s econ d c o u n terargu m en t — t h at t h e app l i cabl e contr act of
c a r r i a g e e x p r e s s ly d is c la im e d lia b ility fo r th e ite m s a t is s u e — is e q u a lly
m e r itle s s . A r tic le 1 7 o f th e M o n tr e a l C o n v e n tio n p r o v id e s fo r s tr ic t lia b ility in t h e case of

dam age to orl oss of bagg age. I f

A i r Fran ce c ou ld c o n tra ct out of 8 l i a b i l i ty u n d e r A rti cl e 2 7 of th e M on trea l C on ve n ti on , as it cl a i m s i t did in it s 9
c ont r ac t of

c ar r i age w i th M uoneke, t hen A r t i c l es 17 a nd 26 w oul d be
m eani ngl es s. U nder A i r Franc e’ s p roffer ed r eadi ng, a c ont r ac t of c ar r i age p r o v i d i n g t h a t “ n o ite m s in ch e c k e d b a g g a g e a r e co v e r e d ” c o u ld e ffe c tiv e ly
e l i m i nat e a l l c ar r i e r l i ab i l i t y f o r da m ag e t o b ag ga ge . Ai r Fr anc e pr o vi de s no l i m i t i ng pr i nci pl e t hat w oul d harm oni ze an ex pansi vely c on st r ued A r t i c l e 2 7
w i t h Ar t i c l e s 1 7 and 26
. I t s r e ad i ng i s t he r e f o r e unpe r s uas i ve , and w e de c l i ne to ad op t i t. 10N o. 08- 20227

Al thou ghou r pri or o pini on in this case made refere nce to the Warsa w Co nv enti on 11 (whichperhaps acco unt s for the confu siononrema nd), the Warsa w Co nv enti on provisionon wh ic hwef

oc u se d inth a t ca se— requ irin gMuo n ek e topro vid e n ot ic e toAi r F ra n ceof h erl os s w it hi n a s p ecifi c pe riod of ti me — is i denti cal in allrel ev antrespe cts toth e a nal ogous provisionof the Montre al Conve ntio n. Acco rdin gly, as we did not ex plicitlydeterminebe fore tha t th e W arsaw Conve ntio n appli ed toMuo neke’s clai m, and as it was not nece ssaryfor us to doso implic itlyto resolv e th e prior appeal, we are not bou nd on this que stionbyth e prior op inio nu n de r th e do ct ri n e o f la w o f th e ca se . See Alpha/Omega In s. Servs., I nc. v. Prudent ial I n s. C o. of Am. , 27 2 F .3d 276 , 279(5th Ci r. 2 001 ). Additio nal ly , Air Fra nce probablywaiv ed anyla w-of-the-ca se argu ments and definitely forfei ted anyw aiv er-be low argu ments byfailin g toa sse rta n d tob ri ef

t h em . Lyndon Pro

p. Ins. Co. v. DukeLevy & Asso cs. , LLC, 47 5 F .3d 2 68, 2 7 0 ( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 7 ); cf. Un ited S tat es v. Palmer , 1 2 2 F .3 d 2 1 5 , 2 2 0 -2 2 ( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 7 ). Th e d is t r ict court di d n ot a ddress th e i ssue o f th e co rrect date on whichto fixth e 12 ex cha ng e rate b ecau se th e court consi dered the differe nce betwee n the ex cha ng e rate at th e time of th e l oss an d th e ti me of trial t oo inc onsequentialto deserv e re solu tion . I nstea d, it used the m ore generous exchange rat e, wh ich wa s als o t he pr evailin g ra te at the tim e o f tri al. As the parti es do not disputeth e e xch ange rate used, we see no nee d to address the timin g issue in this case. Weal so n ote tha t i na s m uc h as t he MontrealC onv enti on does n ot u se aper kilogram me asureto cal cul ate theappropria te liab ili ty limi tati on in thi s case, w e h av e n o n eed to address wheth er the Warsa w Co nv enti on requ ired the distric t co urt to u se th e wei gh t of the da ma g edi te ms ort h e we igh t of t h e b a gi nwh ic ht h eywe rec onta in ed

.

7 H a v i n g est abli shed t h at t h e M on t real C on ven t i on shou l d h ave been ap pl i ed, an d u si n g t h e di st ri ct cou rt ’ s S D R s- t o- dol l ars exch an ge rat e t o w h i ch

11 th e p a r t i e s d o n o t o b je c t, w e ca p A ir F r a n c e ’ s lia b ility a t $ 1 5 8 0 , w h ic h is in 12
excess of

t h e am ou n t M u on eke cl ai m s sh e is enti t l ed to recover . W e t h eref ore
n e e d n o t r e a c h M u o n e k e ’ s o th e r a s s e r tio n s o f e r r o r . G iv e n th e s im p le
c al c ul at i ons i nvol ved, w e a l so s ee no nee d t o w as t e j udi c i al r es our c es by
r e m a n d in g th is ca s e to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t fo r co r r e c tio n o f th e ju d g m e n t o n th is po i nt
. I ns t e ad , w e do i t o ur s e l ve s . The di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s j udg m e nt i s r e ve r s e d, a nd
w e r e nde r j udg m e nt i n M uo ne ke ’ s fav o r and ag ai ns t A i r F r anc e i n t he a m o unt of $1, 242. 79. B

. F ee s a n d C o stsN o. 08- 20227

Se eBo e h r i n

ge r - M a n n h e i m D i a

gn o s t i c s , I

n c . v . P a nA m . W

o r l dA i r way s , In c. , 73 7 13 F.2d456 , 4 5 9( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 8 4); Domang ue v. E. Air L ines, In c. , 72 2 F .2d 2 56, 261 (5th Ci r. 1 9 8 4). Montre al Conve ntio n art. 22, ¶ 6(“The limit s prescribed in Arti cle 21 and in this

14 Arti cle shal l n ot pr ev ent the court fro m awar ding , inac corda nce with its o wn law, i n additi on, the wholeor part of th e co urt costs a nd of th e o therexpenses of th e l itig atio n inc urre d byth e plai ntif f, in cl u di n gi n te re st .” ); see S. T RE AT Y D OC . N O . 106 -45, 199 9 WL 332 927 34, at *20 (2 0 0 0 ) (e x pl a n a to ryn ot e) ( “Th isp a ra gra php er mi ts c ou rt s, inac co rd a n cewit hth eir ow nl a w, to award to pl aintiffs co urt costs, other liti ga tionexpenses (inc ludin g att orne

ys fe es)in curre d byth e pl aintiff, a s wellas inte rest, i n additi on to the amou nts pr escrib ed i n Arti cles 21 and 2 2 .” ( em ph a si s a dd ed))

.

Mo n tr eal C onv enti ona rt
. 2 2 , ¶ 6( em ph a si s a dd ed). 15 8 W e previ ou sl y ad dressed t h e avail abil i t y of att orneys’ f

ees and cos t s f

or cl ai m s s u ch as M u on eke’ s w he n t h e W arsaw C on ven t i on governed , hol di n g t h em unavai l abl e t o pr evai l i ng pl ai nt i f fs under ( 1) t hat c onvent i on, ( 2) ot her fede r al l aw , or ( 3) s t at e l aw . I n fac t , an y aw ar d of f ee s or c os t s i n exc es s of t he W ar sa w 13 C o n v e n ti on ’ s l i abil i t y cap w ou l d h ave been barred pri or t o t h e U n i t ed S t ates’
r at i f i c at i on o f

t he H ague Pro t oc ol of 1955 t hro ugh i t s ra ti fi c at i on o f M ont r eal P r o to c o l N o . 4 in 1 9 9 8
. The M o nt r e al Conv e nt i o n t ak e s a di f fe r e nt a ppr o ac h. I t doe s no t b ar t he
r ec ove r y o f

ei t her fee s or cos t s i n exc es s of t he l i abi l i t y c aps f

ound i n A r t i c l es 21
an d 2 2. But ne i t he r do e s i t pr o vi de an i nde pe nde nt ba s i s o n w h i ch such

14
a m ou n ts m a y b e a w a rd ed

. T h e p l a i n l a n gu a ge o f th e C on ve n ti on s tates th a t a
cou rt i s n ot pr e v e nt e d “fr o m a w a r d in g , i n a c c o r d a n c e wi t h i t s o wn l aw , . . . t he court cost s and t h e ot h er exp en ses of t h e l i t i gati on . ” M u on eke h as i den t i f i ed 15
no fe de r al l aw t hat pe r m i t s a n a w ar d o f a t t o r ne ys ’ fees i n t hi s c as e , a nd t he gen eral rul e tha t w e em pl oy requ i res each p art y t o bear his ow n att orneys’ feesN o. 08- 20227

Alyeska Pipelin e Serv. C o. v. Wildern ess Soc’y , 4 2 1 U .S

. 2 4 0 , 2 4 7( 1 9 7 5 ). 16 We ther eforen eed not pass onany que stion s of preempti on or the use of sta te fe e- 17 sh if ti n gst a tu te s i nf

ed er a l co u rti nt h isa pp eal. F ED . R. C IV . P

. 5 4 (d). 18 We can not determi ne from th e re cord on appea l wh ethe r th e di s t rict court pa ssed 19 on the que stionwhether “theamo untof the damag es a warded, ex clu ding cou rt co sts an d oth er ex penses of th e l itig atio n, . . . e xce ed[ed] the sum which the carri er [h ad] o ffered in writin g to the plai ntiff withina perio d of six month s from the date of th e o ccurr enceca usin g the damag e, or b eforeth e co mmencement of the acti on, if th at is late r.” Montre al Conve ntio n art. 22, ¶ 6. If the distric t co urt did n ot r eac h t hi s i s s ue, it must doso befo re a n award of co sts is permissib le tha t, w henadded to $124 2.79 , excee ds $1580

. If thetotal of Mu one ke’s co sts plu s the damag es sheis to r ecov er d oes n ot e xce ed $ 158 0, t he district court n eed not reac h this que stion . I f a writtensettl ementoffer in complia nce with Secti on 6 o f Articl e 2 2 wa s made, Muon eke may stillrecove r costs, butonlyup to $15 80 if Air Fra nce did n ot act o r omi t toac t with the “in t en tt o cause damag e o r re cklesslyan d withkno wledg e th at damag e wou ld probablyresu lt.” Mon trea l C onv enti on art. 22, ¶ 5. To the extent tha t the distric t co urt migh t hav e re solv ed t hat factqu estionof inte nt or r ecklessn ess previou sly, we v aca te that de te rm in a ti onb ec a u sei t wa s m a deu n de r an e rro neous le g a l st a n da rd , viz ., theWa rsaw Conve ntio n rath er thanth e Montrea l Conve ntio n (alth ough it is difficultto imagineth at the twoC onv enti on s, em pl oyin ge sse n ti a llyi de n ti ca l l a n gu a ge , e s t ab li s hd if fe re n t st a n da rd s)

. See Pu llman-St andard v. S wint , 45 6 U .S. 273 , 298 -99 (198 2). Th e distric t co urt mayrea ch this q u es ti ona g a ini f do in gsoi s n ec es sa ryf orp u rp os es o f a wa rdin gc os ts
. 9 i n t h e absen ce of

a st atute authori zi n g a fee aw ard. M u on eke h as not i n vi t ed 16
ou r at t en t i on t o an y such st atute, w h et h er f ederal or st ate. 17 N ot so, how ever, f

or c ost s. Th e federal cou rt s’ “ow n law ” d oes provi de f or
an aw ard of

cos t s t o a party i n M u on eke’ s posi t i on . W h et h er su ch an aw ard 18
w ou l d exceed $ 158 0 ( t h e l i m i t of A i r Fran ce’ s l i abil i t y i n t h i s c ase) w h en add ed t o M uo ne ke ’ s r e c o ve r y o f da m ag e s i s i r r e l e va nt und e r t he M o nt r e al Conv e nt i o n. W e t he r e f

o r e r e m and t o t he di s t r i c t c o ur t f o r t he s o l e pur po s e o f t ab ul at i ng t he
am ou n t of

cos t s t o be aw arded t o M u on eke. 19 G i ven t he l i m i t ed nat ure of our r em and, and t he t ypi c al l y unco nt r ove r si al
m e th o d b y w h ic h th e a m o u n t of c o s ts is fix e d , w e a n tic ip a te n o d iffic u ltie s . T h isN o. 08- 20227

10 pa n el nev ert h el ess ret ai n s j u ri sdi ction ov er t h i s c ase un t i l proceedi n gs on
rem an d h ave con cl u ded so t h at w e m ay ef f i ci en t l y d isp ose of

an y i ssues p r e s e n te d to u s . It is lo n g p a s t t im e fo r th is litig a tio n o v e r $ 1 ,2 4 2 .7 9 to e n d

. REVER S ED a n d REND ERED i n p a r t ; AF FI RM ED i n p a r t ; REV ERS ED
an d R E M A N D E D i n part; j u ri sdi ct i on R E T A IN E D

. C ost s t axed against
a p p e lle e .