Gleissner v. Air China Airlines Limited

Background

Michael Gleissner brought a breach-of-contract action against Air China Limited, which he incorrectly named in the complaint as “Air China Airlines Limited.” The dispute arose on August 27, 2015, when Gleissner, his family members, and Wyn Lanosa tried to check in for Air China’s Flight 842 from Barcelona, Spain, to Vienna, Austria. Air China staff refused to issue Lanosa a boarding pass because they concluded that she lacked a valid visa to enter Austria. Lanosa had a single-entry visa for the Schengen Area, and Gleissner, Lanosa, and the family traveled to Vienna on a European carrier instead.

The case was filed in New York state court and then removed to federal court. In a March 26, 2019 order, the court denied Air China’s motion to dismiss, granted its motion for summary judgment, and closed the case. Gleissner then moved for reconsideration of the summary-judgment decision.

Legal standard

The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy. A court may revisit an earlier ruling when there has been an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence has become available, or reconsideration is needed to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. A reconsideration motion is not a substitute for an appeal or an opportunity to present facts and arguments that were previously available.

Court’s analysis

The court considered whether its decision granting Air China summary judgment had been erroneous. It had previously found no genuine dispute of material fact that Lanosa did not possess a valid entry visa for the flight and that Air China therefore properly refused to give her a ticket.

Air China supported its position with several items of evidence. Its Conditions of Carriage allowed it to refuse carriage when it appeared that a customer lacked valid travel documents. A notice at the Barcelona check-in counter warned travelers to Vienna that people with single-entry visas would not be permitted to fly on Air China and would need to use another airline. Air China also submitted sworn statements from airport employees, including a statement that the flight was treated as an international flight because Air China was a non-European carrier and that passengers therefore needed valid passports and visas to enter Austria. Air China further stated in response to an interrogatory that Lanosa could not check in because she lacked a valid visa.

Gleissner relied entirely on a European Commission report about the Schengen Area. He argued that the report showed that flights between two Schengen countries were “internal,” which he asked the court to interpret as meaning “domestic,” rather than international. The court found that he offered no additional evidence. It also stated that, even if the flight were treated as not international regardless of the carrier, summary judgment would still have been proper.

The court said the case did not turn on whether Air China was legally correct that Lanosa could not enter Austria with her single-entry visa while flying on Air China. Instead, the relevant question was whether Air China breached its contractual obligation to Gleissner by refusing to issue Lanosa a boarding pass. Considering the evidence as a whole, the court concluded that Air China had supported its account with abundant admissible evidence, while Gleissner had not shown a genuine factual dispute.

Disposition

Judge Edgardo Ramos denied Gleissner’s motion for reconsideration and directed the clerk to terminate the motion, docketed as Doc. 57. The opinion does not add a prejudice designation to that denial.