Firsov v. Airlines

Background

Sergey Firsov, representing himself, sued Alaska Airlines, Inc. He sought relief primarily under the Montreal Convention and also asserted state-law claims for breach of contract, false advertising, unfair and deceptive business practices under California’s Business and Professions Code, unjust enrichment, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Firsov’s claims arose from allegations that Alaska Airlines refused to let him board without a ticket for his dog, causing him to buy an additional pet ticket that was not refunded, and did not complete food and drink service on the flight. The Alaska flight ran from Los Angeles, California, to San Jose, California, and was the final leg of a multi-stop international trip in March 2025.

Jurisdiction and the Montreal Convention

Alaska Airlines moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits a defendant to challenge the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Firsov’s complaint identified federal-question jurisdiction based on Article 1, paragraph 3, of the Montreal Convention. The court noted that the complaint did not allege facts supporting diversity jurisdiction, including damages exceeding $75,000.

The Montreal Convention applies to international carriage by aircraft for reward. Under Article 1, paragraph 3, carriage by several successive carriers is treated as one undivided carriage only when the parties regarded it as a single operation. The court explained that whether a domestic flight is part of international carriage depends on objective indications of the parties’ intent, beginning with the tickets or equivalent documents.

Even drawing all reasonable inferences in Firsov’s favor, the court found that his complaint did not plausibly allege that Alaska regarded itself as part of a single operation with another carrier. Firsov had attempted to purchase a complex round-trip itinerary but ultimately purchased four separate tickets, apparently involving four different carriers, on four different days. The Alaska ticket was for a Los Angeles-to-San Jose flight issued by Alaska for a flight operated by SkyWest Airlines and did not refer to the other flights. The court therefore concluded that the trip was not regarded by the parties as one international operation and that the complaint failed to plausibly allege a Montreal Convention claim.

State-Law Claims and Disposition

Because the Montreal Convention claim was Firsov’s only asserted basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction, the court found no viable federal claim supporting jurisdiction. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over Firsov’s remaining claims because the case was still in its early stages.

The court granted Alaska Airlines’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed Firsov’s federal Montreal Convention claim without leave to amend, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, vacated the scheduled hearing, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the file.