Sarah Fadhliah et al v. Soiete Air France et al

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. The Court questions whether it has federal question jurisdiction over this case. The Court ORDERS Defendant to SHOW CAUSE in writing by September 17, 2013, why this case should not be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs may submit a simultaneous brief on the jurisdictional issue if they choose. Briefs shall not exceed 15 pages. Failure to timely respond will result in remand of this case. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 9/17/2013. (cch)

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

SARAH FADHLIAH; ALJOHARAH
ALSHAIKH; MANSOUR ALSHAIKH;
ALANOUD ALSHAIKH; SULTAN
ALSHAIKH; ABDULLAH ALSHAIKH,

13
14
15
16
17

v.

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 2:13-cv-06142-ODW(AJWx)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE.
LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER
JURISDICTION

SOCIETE AIR FRANCE dba AIR
FRANCE; RUDOLPH VAN DER
SCHRAAF; DOES 1–50,
Defendants.

18
19

On August 21, 2013, Defendant Societe Air France removed this case from Los

20

Angeles County Superior Court to this Court. (ECF No. 1.) Air France contends that

21

28 U.S.C. § 1331 vests this Court with jurisdiction, arguing that Plaintiffs’ state-law

22

tort claims arise under the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for

23

International Carriage by Air, May 28, 1999, S. Treaty Doc. No. 106-45, 2242

24

U.N.T.S. 309 [hereinafter Montreal Convention]. (Not. of Removal ¶ 2.)

25

Generally the “well-pleaded-complaint rule” governs whether a defendant has

26

properly removed a case to federal court. Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers

27

Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 27–28 (1983). Under this this rule, federal law

28

must either create plaintiff’s cause of action or plaintiff’s right to relief must

1

“necessarily depend on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Id.

2

at 28. It is also well settled that a defendant may not remove a case based on a

3

federal-law defense, including preemption. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S.

4

386, 393 (1987).

5

An exception exists to the well-pleaded-complaint rule, namely, the complete-

6

preemption doctrine. Holman v. Laulo-Rowe Agency, 994 F.2d 666, 668 (9th Cir.

7

1993).

8

‘extraordinary’ that it converts state common law claims into claims arising under

9

federal law for purposes of jurisdiction.” Id. But this exception only applies in

10

extremely limited circumstances. See Jensen v. Virgin Atl., 12-CV-06227 YGR, 2013

11

WL 1207962, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2013) (noting that the United States Supreme

12

Court has only found complete preemption in three instances).

This doctrine applies “where the preemptive force of federal law is so

13

Air France does not style its basis of removal as complete preemption. Yet Air

14

France does allege that this case arose from “international carriage” within the

15

meaning of Article 1 of the Montreal Convention, thus triggering the Convention’s

16

provisions. (Not. of Removal ¶ 4.) Air France thus asserts that “the rights and

17

liabilities of the parties are exclusively governed by the provisions of” the Montreal

18

Convention. (Id. ¶ 5.)

19
20

The Montreal Convention contains a provision that suggests some level of
preemption. Article 29 provides,

21

In the carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo, any action for damages,

22

however founded, whether under this Convention or in contract or in tort

23

or otherwise, can only be brought subject to the conditions and such

24

limits of liability as are set out in this Convention without prejudice to

25

the question as to who are the persons who have the right to bring suit

26

and what are their respective rights.

27

exemplary or any other non-compensatory damages shall not be

28

recoverable.

2

In any such action, punitive,

1

But whether the preemptive force of Article 29 rises to the level of complete

2

preemption is a different issue. Neither the United States Supreme Court nor the

3

Ninth Circuit has addressed this issue. And federal district courts that have reached

4

the issue have split. Jensen, 2013 WL 1207962, at *3 (collecting cases).

5

Amid this unsettled legal landscape, the Court questions whether it has federal-

6

question jurisdiction over this case. The Court therefore ORDERS Defendant to

7

SHOW CAUSE in writing by September 17, 2013, why this case should not be

8

remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs may submit a simultaneous

9

brief on the jurisdictional issue if they choose. Briefs shall not exceed 15 pages.

10

Failure to timely respond will result in remand of this case.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

August 27, 2013

15
16
17

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3