A district court in New Jersey recently remanded a Montreal Convention lost baggage case to state court, holding that the Montreal Convention does not completely preempt all state law claims. The plaintiff brought suit in New Jersey state court, alleging under state law that the airline was grossly negligent and reckless in handling the baggage, which was never recovered. In remanding the action, the court focused on the plain language of Article 29, and found that its reference to "any action for damages, however founded, whether under this Convention or in contract or in tort or otherwise," suggests that state law contract and tort claims are expressly contemplated by the Convention. The court held instead that the Montreal Convention could be asserted as a defense.
This disappointing result once again highlights the split among United States courts, some of which have held that removal under the Montreal Convention is proper (e.g., the Second Circuit), while others have held it is not (e.g., the Ninth Circuit). Hoffman v. Alitalia-Compagnia Aerea Italiana S.p.A., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56036 (D.N.J., Apr. 28, 2015).
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.