Adelson v. American Airlines, Inc. et al

Filing 49

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT by Judge William Alsup [granting 41 Motion to Amend/Correct]. Plaintiff is required to E-FILE the amended document. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
JOEL W. ADELSON, M.D,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

Plaintiff,

No. C 17-00548 WHA

v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., and
BRITISH AIRWAYS, PLC,

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE
TO AMEND COMPLAINT

Defendants.

15

/

16
17

INTRODUCTION

18

In this personal injury action under Article 17 of the Montreal Convention, plaintiff

19

moves to amend his complaint pursuant to Rule 15. For the reasons herein, plaintiff’s motion is

20

GRANTED.

21

STATEMENT

22

Plaintiff Joel Adelson’s trip in 2016 had two legs, with a 70-minute layover between

23

flights at Heathrow. Plaintiff arrived at Terminal 3 and proceeded directly to Terminal 5 via

24

inter-terminal transportation. As he entered the ground floor of Terminal 5, the door slammed

25

shut, striking plaintiff on the arm and “knocking him violently to the floor” (Dkt. No. 41-1, Exh.

26

A at 4). Based on these allegations, Adelson asserted a single claim against defendants

27

American Airlines, Inc., and British Airways, PLC, under Article 17 of the Montreal

28

1

Convention, formally known as the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by

2

Air, Done at Montreal, May 28, 1999, S. Treaty Doc. No. 106-45, 1999 WL 33292734.

3

Plaintiff’s original complaint lacked sufficient allegations to establish a claim.

4

Judgment on the pleadings was therefore granted in favor of the defendants. Plaintiff now

5

moves to amend his complaint to correct its deficiencies.

6
7

ANALYSIS
Rule 15(a)(2) advises, “The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.”

8

In ruling on motions for leave to amend, courts consider (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay,

9

(3) prejudice to the opposing party, (4) futility of amendment, and (5) whether the plaintiff has
previously amended their complaint. Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 2003).

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Futility alone can justify denying leave to amend. Ibid.; see also Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838 F.3d

12

958, 968 (9th Cir. 2016). The parties debate only the futility factor on the instant motion.

13
14

Plaintiff’s amended complaint contends that British Airways is liable under Article 17
and American Airlines is liable under Article 39 of the Montreal Convention.

15

1.

16

Both sides agree that British Airways is a carrier governed under the Montreal

17

Convention. Article 17 of the Montreal Convention states that a carrier shall be liable for any

18

bodily injury “suffered by a passenger, if the accident . . . took place on board the aircraft or in

19

the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.” Defendants contend that

20

plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint fails to state a claim under the Montreal Convention

21

because it does not show that he was embarking or disembarking at the time of the alleged

22

incident. To determine whether a passenger is embarking or disembarking, Article 17 requires

23

consideration of (1) the activity the passenger was engaged in, (2) the passenger’s location,

24

and (3) the control of the airline over the passenger, all at the time of the accident. Maugnie v.

25

Compagnie Nationale Air France, 549 F.2d 1256, 1262 (9th Cir. 1977) (citing Day v. Trans

26

World Airlines, Inc., 528 F.2d 31, 33-34 (2d Cir. 1975)).

27
28

BRITISH AIRWAYS’ LIABILITY UNDER ARTICLE 17.

First, plaintiff now asserts that his activity was within the scope of embarkation because
he traveled directly from Terminal 3 to Terminal 5 to board his connecting flight and did not
2

the point of incident to his gate, “making no stops or detours for a meal, or ‘window shopping’

3

or whatever else, except perhaps to pick up a cup of coffee” (Dkt. No. 41-1, Exh. A at 4–5).

4

Defendants counter that plaintiff’s activity was not consistent with embarkation because he did

5

not travel directly to his gate, but rather to purchase coffee and pass through additional security.

6

“All allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most

7

favorable to Plaintiffs. However, conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are

8

insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.” Epstein v. Wash. Energy

9

Co., 83 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). Even if plaintiff stopped for coffee,

10

if he traveled the same path through the delinquent door as he would have had he walked straight

11
For the Northern District of California

divert from his route. In support, he states that even after his injury he proceeded directly from

2

United States District Court

1

through, then what difference would the coffee stop make? We cannot expect ordinary

12

passengers to remember the layout of the airport, so he should have discovery to fill in this

13

detail. When these alleged facts are viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to

14

plaintiff, it is plausible that he went directly to his gate, such that plaintiff’s activity met Article

15

17.

16

Second, as to the second factor of embarkation, plaintiff’s amended complaint alleges

17

facts that reveal his location relative to his connecting flight. Plaintiff “cannot state with

18

accuracy how far [the gate] was from the door that struck him . . . but [the gate] was something

19

over a hundred yards [away],” and on the ground floor of Terminal 5 (Dkt. No. 41-1, Exh. A at

20

4–5). Defendants argue that plaintiff was nowhere near the gate, as he was over a football field

21

away. Distance alone is insufficient to establish that plaintiff’s location does not meet

22

embarkation. In light of the fact that plaintiff traveled from Terminal 3 to Terminal 5, a

23

plausible inference can be drawn that he was close enough to his gate to satisfy Article 17.

24

Third, plaintiff alleges that British Airways controlled his actions because “he [was]

25

following explicit directions set out by [British Airways] on the most efficient and direct route to

26

get from one [British Airways] flight to another” (Dkt. No. 41-2 at 4). Plaintiff also alleges that

27

British Airways controls which planes go to which gates. Defendants argue that plaintiff was not

28

under their control because “his new allegations are devoid of any contact with [British Airways]
3

1

or [American Airlines] personnel before, during, or after the alleged incident” (Dkt. No. 43 at 6).

2

Although plaintiff did not have direct contact with personnel, it is plausible that British Airways

3

steers passengers through Heathrow.

4

In summary, plaintiff is reasonably close to alleging facts that meet the three elements of

5

embarking under the Montreal Convention. British Airways, not plaintiff, is in possession of the

6

facts necessary to determine if plaintiff was in the process of embarkation and it would be unfair

7

to expect plaintiff to plead facts held in secrecy by British Airways. Under the specific facts of

8

this case, plaintiff is entitled to those secrets to prove facts and circumstances necessary to

9

establish embarkation. The amended complaint is sustained.
2.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

AMERICAN AIRLINES’ LIABILITY UNDER ARTICLE 39.

Plaintiff alleges that he purchased his British Airways flights with American Airlines air

12

miles. His original complaint failed to state a claim against American Airlines because it did

13

not allege any contract between him and the airline. Plaintiff now amends his complaint to

14

allege that he “contracted for transportation by air with American Airlines” because he flew with

15

British Airways “under a ticket sold and issued by American Airlines” (Dkt. No. 41-1, Exh. A at

16

5–6). Furthermore, plaintiff contends that American Airlines was a “contracting carrier” under

17

Article 39 of the Montreal Convention. While plaintiff does not discuss the significance of a

18

contracting carrier, the allegation is important because if American Airlines is a contracting

19

carrier, it holds mutual liability with British Airways under the Montreal Convention.

20
21
22
23
24
25

Article 39 reads:
The provisions of this Chapter apply when a person (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the contracting carrier’) as a principal makes a
contract of carriage governed by this Convention with a passenger
or consignor or with a person acting on behalf of the passenger or
consignor, and another person (hereinafter referred to as ‘the actual
contractor’) performs, by virtue of authority from the contracting
carrier, the whole or part of the carriage, but is not with respect
to such part a successive carrier within the meaning of this
Convention. Such authority shall be presumed in the absence of
proof to the contrary.

26
Article 41 of the Montreal Convention extends mutual liability to contracting carriers for
27
acts and omissions of the actual carrier. If British Airways, the actual carrier, is liable under
28
Article 17 and American Airlines is a contracting carrier, American Airlines is liable for
4

1

the actions and omissions of British Airways and therefore a proper party to this action.

2

Defendants have not put forth any argument as to why American Airlines would not constitute

3

a contracting carrier (Dkt. No. 38 at 9–10; Dkt. No. 43).

4

Plaintiff has therefore corrected the deficiencies in his complaint by alleging a contract

5

with American Airlines and stating that the airline is liable as a contracting carrier under the

6

Montreal Convention.

7

CONCLUSION

8

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion to amend is GRANTED. Defendants’

9

requests for judicial notice is not relied upon in this order and DENIED AS MOOT.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: July 28, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5