Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 27, 2024

Walker v. Transportes Aereos Portugueses, S.A.

Judge
Maxine Chesney
Docket
3:24-cv-06226
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to DismissTort
In one sentence

In Walker v. Transportes Aereos Portugueses, Judge Chesney ordered record supplementation before deciding the airline’s motion to dismiss.

Who this affects

The order affects the three minor plaintiffs represented by Christian Walker and Transportes Aereos Portugueses, S.A.; it requires the defendant to supplement the record and gives the plaintiffs an opportunity to respond.

What happened

In Walker v. Transportes Aereos Portugueses, S.A., Christian Walker, acting as guardian for three minor children, sued the airline over an injury during an international flight.

The airline argued that the Montreal Convention barred the claims because the flight arrived on August 19, 2019, while the initial complaint was filed on January 11, 2024. The court did not decide the motion to dismiss because the initial complaint was not in the record.

Judge Maxine Chesney ordered the airline to file the initial complaint by October 4, 2024, allowed the plaintiffs to respond by October 11, 2024, and vacated the scheduled hearing.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Walker v. Transportes Aereos Portugueses, S.A. · No. 3:24-cv-06226
Judge
Maxine Chesney
Date
Sept. 27, 2024

Background

Christian Walker sued as guardian ad litem—a person appointed to represent another party in the case—for three minor children. The opinion identifies Walker as the children’s mother. The complaint concerns an alleged personal injury to one child, S.W., while S.W. was traveling with Walker and two siblings on an international flight. The defendant identified itself as Transportes Aereos Portugueses, S.A. and stated that it had been incorrectly sued as “TAP Air Portugal.”

The defendant moved to dismiss the claims in the First Amended Complaint. Walker did not file an opposition by the deadline stated in the order.

Montreal Convention limitation argument

The court explained that claims for damages against an airline arising from an international passenger injury are governed exclusively by the Montreal Convention. Under that Convention, the right to damages ends if an action is not brought within two years from the date of arrival at the destination.

The plaintiffs alleged that the flight arrived at its scheduled destination on August 19, 2019. The defendant argued that the claims were barred because the initial complaint was filed in state court on January 11, 2024, more than two years later.

Court’s action

The court did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss. It found that the defendant had not submitted a copy of the initial complaint with its motion and that the complaint was otherwise absent from the record. The court directed the defendant to file a copy of the initial complaint by October 4, 2024. The plaintiffs could respond to that filing by October 11, 2024. The court stated that it would take the matter under submission as of October 11 and vacated the hearing scheduled for October 18, 2024.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.