Source: https://condonlaw.com/2014/06/last-district-court-judge-determine-enforceability-eu-261-us-joins-chorus-holding-direct-claim-eu-261-compensation-brought-us-cour/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 09:46:00+00:00

Document:
Following the reasoning of Judge Nordberg in Lozano v. Continental Airlines, Inc.5 and Judge Chang in Volodarskiy v. Delta,6 the first two district court judges to issue opinions determining the enforceability of EU 261 in the US, Judge Tharp granted United’s motion to dismiss on the ground that EU 261 does not create a private right of action enforceable in US courts. Judge Tharp agreed with Judge Chang that the text of the Regulation alone sufficiently demonstrates that the private right of action conferred by EU 261 is expressly limited and can only be brought in the courts of the Member States of the EU, not US courts. Acknowledging Judge Nordberg’s analysis of the legislative history of EU 261 in the Lozano case, Judge Tharp agreed that the legislative history of the Regulation further confirms that EU 261 was not intended to be applied extraterritorially in courts outside the EU.
The five Northern District of Illinois judges tasked with determining the enforceability of EU 261 by domestic courts now unanimously agree that EU 261 does not create a private cause of action enforceable in US courts. The question that remains is whether the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals will uphold the district courts’ rulings. Currently, appeals of three of the district courts’ rulings are pending before the Court of Appeals. The first-filed appeal was in the Volodarskiy v. Delta case. The briefing was completed in March 2014 and oral arguments heard in April 2014. The Seventh Circuit has stayed the briefing in the other EU 261 appeals pending a decision in Volodarskiy.
1 Condon & Forsyth’s previous Client Bulletins and Newsletters on the topic of EU 261 are available at: https://condonlaw.com/publications.htm.
2 No. 12 C 7040, Order [Dkt No. 46] (N.D. Ill. June 18, 2014) (Tharp, J.).
3 A seventh class action lawsuit was filed against British Airways Plc, but the plaintiffs did not allege a cause of action for violation of EU 261; rather, they asserted a single cause of action for breach contract and sought to enforce the terms of British Airways’ conditions of carriage, which they alleged incorporated EU 261. The breach of contract cause of action was dismissed because it was preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act.
4 Giannopoulos v. Iberia, Líneas Aéreas de España, S.A., No. 11 C 775 (N.D. Ill. filed Feb. 3, 2011); Volodarskiy v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., No. 11 C 782 (N.D. Ill. filed on Feb. 3, 2011); Gurevich v. Alitalia, No. 11 C 1890 (N.D. Ill. filed Mar. 18, 2011); Lozano v. Continental Airlines, Inc., No, 11 C 8258 (N.D. Ill. filed Nov. 18, 2011).
5 2013 WL 5408652 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 26, 2013).
6 2013 WL 5645776 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 16, 2013).
7 The third decision was issued by Judge Thomas Durkin in Giannopoulos v. Iberia, Líneas Aéreas de España, S.A., No. 11 C 775, 2014 WL 551603 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 12, 2014). Judge Durkin’s decision is discussed in Condon & Forsyth’s February 21, 2014 Client Bulletin.
8 Polinovsky v. Deutsche Lufthansa, AG, 2014 WL 958666 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 12, 2014); Gurevich v. Compagnia Aereas Italiana, No. 11 C 1890, Opinion and Order [Dkt No. 104] (N.D. Ill. Mar. 18, 2014) (Coleman, J.).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.