Montreal Convention—Court Grants Carrier's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Emotional Distress, Breach of Contract and Discrimination Claims - written by Philip Weissman & Nicholas Magali
A pro se plaintiff brought an action against Turkish Airlines, Inc. for, inter alia, breach of contract and discrimination after allegedly suffering "extreme emotional distress" from being denied an exit row seat, not receiving an allegedly promised seat with "leg space," and the flight crew's violation of "safety requirements" in failing to "provide any information regarding safety" and to "illuminate the seat belt signs before landing" on a flight from Washington, D.C. to Istanbul. The Court granted the air carrier's motion to dismiss, holding that the Montreal Convention preempted plaintiff's discrimination and breach of contract claims as they were "indistinct from plaintiffs' tortious theories of harm," the plaintiff's dispute over his seating was not a Montreal Convention "accident," and the Montreal Convention precluded recovery for plaintiff's alleged mental injuries. Naqvi v. Turkish Airlines, Inc., 2015 WL 757198 (D.D.C. Feb. 23,
2015). Georgia Federal Court Holds That Air Carrier Access Act Does Not Completely Preempt Blind Passenger's State Law Claims Regarding Alleged Failure to Assist - written by Philip Weissman & Nicholas Magali
Plaintiff, who is blind, requested but did not receive boarding assistance from defendant air carrier's employee and, while attempting to board the aircraft without assistance, tripped and fell on the ramp leading to the aircraft. Plaintiff filed a state court negligence action against defendant. Defendant removed the matter to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that that the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 ("ACAA") preempted plaintiff's state law negligence claims and did not provide plaintiff with a private right of action. Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to state court. The federal court granted plaintiff's motion to remand, holding that the ACAA did not completely preempt plaintiff's state law negligence claims but only preempted certain state law standards of care with regard to assistance to passengers. Baugh v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 2015 WL 761932 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 23, 2015).
Montreal Convention—State Law Claims against Carrier arising from Shipment of French Bulldogs Preempted - written by Philip Weissman & Nicholas Magali
A pro se plaintiff brought an action against defendant Delta Airlines, Inc. ("Delta") arising out of the shipment of two adult and ten puppy French bulldogs from Budapest, Hungary to Salt Lake City, Utah. Upon arrival, the adult dog was dead and approximately three months later, two puppies died. The remaining eight puppies were alleged to have permanent health problems. Plaintiff brought various state law claims against the defendant, including breach of contract, deceptive advertising and consumer sale practices, failure to disclose, and the breach of good faith and fair dealing. The Court granted Delta's motion to dismiss the complaint, finding that the Montreal Convention preempted plaintiff's state law claims and that the claims were time-barred by the Convention's two-year limitation period. The Court did not accept plaintiff's arguments that the Convention did not preempt claims for willful and intentional misconduct, that the claims involved a separate incident from the DOT Consent Order—Advertising Violation—Ticket Agent Websitecarriage, and that the dogs should be considered passengers. Burgett v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 2015 WL 1057870 (D. Utah March 10, 2015).
DOT Consent Order—Advertising Violation—Ticket Agent Website - written by Daniel Correll & Nicholas Magali
.Following its investigation, the Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (Enforcement Office) found that the fare matrix provided on Fareportal's website falsely displayed that the same carrier operated both the outbound and return flights when in fact a different carrier operated one of the legs. In addition, the fare matrix erroneously displayed flights as being non-stop when they in fact had multiple stops. Because Fareportal is considered to be a ticket agent under 49 U.S.C. § 40102(45), it is subject to 49 U.S.C. § 41712, which grants the Department of Transportation broad authority to prohibit unfair or deceptive practices or unfair methods of competition in air transportation. Fareportal stated in mitigation that it fully cooperated with the investigation and that none of the alleged facts resulted in harm to any consumers. Fareportal explained that the customer had full view of the detailed itinerary on the same page as the fare matrix tool and could not transact with the site without reviewing the detailed flight information at least twice. Notwithstanding this position, Fareportal made significant changes to its search features and other functionality to ensure regulatory compliance. Without admitting or denying the alleged violations, Fareportal consented to an order to cease and desist from future violations of 49 U.S.C. § 41712 and to the assessment of $185,000 (half of which was payable immediately and the other half due only upon a further violation within 12 months of the order). Fareportal, Inc., d/b/a CheapOair, Docket OST 2015-0002, March 13, 2015.
March 19, 2015 DOT Notice—Carriers Reminded of Condition Prohibiting Foreign Carriers from Carrying Code of U.S. Partners on Flights in, to or through Areas Where FAA Has Issued Flight Prohibition - written by Philip Weissman & Nicholas Magali
U.S. Department of Transportation ("DOT") statements of authorization allowing foreign carriers to display the codes of a U.S. air carrier partners contain a condition that a foreign operating carrier "shall not permit the code of its U.S. code-sharing partner to be carried on any flight that enters, departs or transits the airspace of any area for whose airspace the Federal Aviation Administration has issued a flight prohibition." On March 19, 2015, "giving the growing concerns about regional conflict zones around the world," the DOT issued a notice to remind carriers of this condition and that a carrier's failure to adhere to the above condition would render the carrier liable to DOT enforcement action.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
