Meirer v. Scandinavian Airlines System

Background

Michael Meirer alleged that he suffered a stroke while aboard Scandinavian Airlines System flight 936 from San Francisco to Copenhagen on March 5, 2019. He alleged that the flight crew initially said the plane would make an emergency landing in Iceland, but later reversed that decision after receiving advice from MedAire. He further alleged that the flight continued to Copenhagen, that authorities there were not alerted to the medical emergency, and that he had to take a taxi to a hospital after landing. He alleged that the delay caused permanent neurological damage, including partial blindness.

Meirer asserted common-carrier strict-liability and negligence claims against Scandinavian Airlines System and Scandinavian Airlines of North America, Inc. (SANA), and a negligence claim against MedAire, Inc. He alleged that Scandinavian Airlines System conducted business in the United States through SANA. The opinion states that Scandinavian Airlines System is a foreign air carrier licensed by the U.S. Department of Transportation to operate international flights to and from the United States.

SANA’s Personal-Jurisdiction Motion

SANA moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), which allows dismissal when the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The court explained that Meirer had to make a preliminary showing that facts, if true, would support jurisdiction.

The court found no general jurisdiction over SANA because SANA was incorporated in New York and had its principal place of business in New Jersey. The court also found that Meirer had not sufficiently shown specific jurisdiction. Although SANA was registered to do business in California, its finance and human-resources director stated that SANA had one employee there, no other California connections, and did not perform services for Scandinavian Airlines System concerning flight 936. The court also declined to order jurisdictional discovery because it found Meirer’s request rested on little more than a hunch that discovery might produce relevant facts.

The court granted SANA’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. It granted Meirer leave to amend if he could, in good faith and consistently with his obligations under Rule 11, add facts establishing jurisdiction.

Claims Against Scandinavian Airlines System

Scandinavian Airlines System argued that Meirer’s first two claims had to be dismissed because Article 17 of the Montreal Convention provided his only remedy. The court explained that the Montreal Convention governs claims arising from international air transportation within its scope and can preempt state-law claims, including claims labeled as contract or tort claims.

The court concluded that the Montreal Convention’s exclusivity provision applied to each of Meirer’s claims against Scandinavian Airlines System. It therefore granted Scandinavian Airlines System’s motion to dismiss the first two claims for relief. The court granted Meirer leave to amend to expressly plead an Article 17 claim under the Montreal Convention. The court also stated that an amendment would not prevent Meirer from arguing that Scandinavian Airlines System was negligent or that liability caps did not apply.

Claim Against MedAire

MedAire moved to dismiss Meirer’s negligence claim, arguing that the Montreal Convention’s protections could apply to it. Meirer argued that the Convention did not apply because MedAire was not an airline carrier. The court noted that Article 30 allows a carrier’s servant or agent to use the Convention’s conditions and liability limits when acting within the scope of employment.

The court assumed, for purposes of the motion, that the Montreal Convention could apply as an affirmative defense to Meirer’s claim against MedAire. An affirmative defense is a legal reason a defendant may avoid liability even if the complaint’s allegations are otherwise accepted; the court may consider such a defense on a motion to dismiss when the complaint itself establishes it.

Although Meirer did not expressly allege that MedAire was Scandinavian Airlines System’s agent, he alleged that the two acted together to cause the harm and that MedAire provided flight-operational advice for the airline’s passengers. The court found that the alleged facts supported the conclusion that MedAire could receive the Convention’s protections.

The court granted MedAire’s motion to dismiss and granted Meirer leave to amend either to assert a claim clearly outside the Montreal Convention’s scope or to assert a claim against MedAire under the Convention.

Disposition

The court granted the motions to dismiss filed by SANA, Scandinavian Airlines System, and MedAire. The court granted Plaintiff leave to amend under the terms of the order. If Meirer amended, the amended complaint was due February 5, 2021, defendants’ responses were due February 26, 2021, and the initial case-management conference was set for March 26, 2021.