Opinion ID: 186146
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The first phase of litigation

Text: On December 20, 1996, five Cruz family members, including Beato Cruz, sued American in federal district court to recover 5 the value of their bags. Relying on the Warsaw Convention, they sought damages equal to the fair value of the contents of their lost and damaged luggage. They also alleged that American unlawfully required them to complete a lostproperty form and illegally applied the 30–day rule to them. The Cruzes accordingly sought both a declaration that these procedures were illegal and an injunction preventing American from applying the procedures to future passengers. The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ declaratory and injunctive claims for lack of Article III standing. The court reasoned that as American admitted, it had incorrectly required the Cruzes to fill out a claim form, mistakenly applied the 30–day rule to the Cruzes’ claims, and agreed to process the Cruzes’ claims as timely filed, the Cruzes personally stood to gain little from the requested declaratory and injunctive relief. Moreover, reasoned the court, the possibility that American would in similar circumstances again misapply those procedures to the Cruzes was highly improbable. The district court concluded, therefore, that the Cruzes had no standing to raise the declaratory and injunctive claims. American also moved for partial summary judgment on the Cruzes’ damages claims to the extent the Cruzes sought damages in excess of the Warsaw Convention’s $9.07 perpound liability limit. American, however, conceded that it was liable to the Cruzes to the extent of $9.07 per pound of their lost bags. Consequently, American also moved for entry of final judgment in the Cruzes’ favor to the extent of $9.07 times the poundage of the Cruzes’ bags. The district court granted both of American’s motions, holding that American’s liability to the Cruzes under the Warsaw Convention was limited to $9.07 per pound of lost luggage. The Cruzes had argued that the Warsaw Convention’s liability limit did not apply because American had failed to state the weight of each suitcase on the Cruzes’ baggage stubs, as required by Article 4(3)(f) of the Convention. The district court rejected this argument. Because American conceded liability to the Cruzes and moved for partial judg- 6 ment in the Cruzes’ favor, the district court entered a judgment in the Cruzes’ favor to the extent of $9.07 times the poundage of their bags. While American’s summary-judgment motions were pending, the Cruzes moved to amend their complaint. Their motion sought to transform their individual claims into classaction claims on behalf of others who had lost their luggage in similar circumstances. That motion was pending when the district court ruled on American’s summary-judgment motions. After its ruling, the district court dismissed the Cruzes’ motion to amend as moot. The Cruzes successfully appealed the district court’s judgment to this Court. On appeal, the Cruzes attacked, among other things, the district court’s ruling regarding the Warsaw Convention’s liability limit. In particular, they argued that the liability limit did not apply to the Cruzes’ damages claims, because American had failed to record the baggage weight of each suitcase on the Cruzes’ baggage stubs. We accepted that argument and accordingly vacated and remanded the district court’s judgment. Cruz v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 193 F.3d 526, 528–30 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Cruz did not, however, address whether the district court’s standing rulings were correct. Nor did Cruz address whether the district court correctly dismissed as moot the Cruzes’ motion to amend their complaint. Cruz merely reinstated the Cruzes’ action to its prior, pre-summary judgment status and thus revived the Cruzes’ motion to amend their complaint to a class action. Id. at 528 n.2.