Firsov v. Airlines

Background

The court considered United Airlines, Inc.’s motion to dismiss Firsov’s amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court had previously dismissed Firsov’s original complaint for failing to establish personal jurisdiction over Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft and for failing to state a claim under the Montreal Convention.

Montreal Convention Claims

The court again found that Firsov failed to state a claim under the Montreal Convention. Firsov alleged that United violated Article 19 by charging baggage fees that he believed should have been waived because of his airline status. The court held that being charged a fee was not a “delay” under Article 19. Although Firsov also alleged that he was denied boarding and therefore delayed, the court found that he provided no factual allegations showing that he or his baggage was actually delayed because of United’s conduct. The court also noted that Firsov stated elsewhere that he paid the baggage fees and eventually received refunds.

The court rejected Firsov’s reliance on other Montreal Convention provisions, explaining that those provisions did not create separate causes of action or transform a breach-of-contract theory into a Montreal Convention claim. The court also rejected his claim styled as tortious interference with international contracts because the Convention provides no independent claim of that kind and the alleged baggage-fee theory did not establish a qualifying delay.

Jurisdiction and State-Law Claims

The court rejected Firsov’s suggestion that diversity jurisdiction applied. Even assuming that Firsov and the defendants were citizens of different states, the court found that the amended complaint did not plausibly allege more than $75,000 in controversy. Firsov’s requests for more than $75,000 in punitive and emotional-distress damages were unsupported, and the court stated that emotional and dignitary harms are not recoverable under Article 19.

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. It concluded that, because the federal claims were being eliminated at an early stage, considerations including judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and respect for state courts favored declining jurisdiction.

Disposition

Judge S. Gilliam, Jr. granted United’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the case against United without leave to amend, dismissed Firsov’s Montreal Convention claims against United with prejudice, and dismissed his state-law claims against United without prejudice to refiling in state court if consistent with the state-court prefiling order. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for United and against Firsov.

The court did not decide whether Firsov adequately established personal jurisdiction over Lufthansa because Lufthansa had not responded to the amended complaint. After Lufthansa objected that it had not been properly served, the court directed Firsov to show cause by September 21, 2026, why the case against Lufthansa should not be dismissed for failure to properly serve the amended complaint.