Narkiewicz-Laine v. Scandinavian Airline Systems

587 F. Supp. 2d 888 (2008)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Narkiewicz-Laine v. Scandinavian Airline Systems

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
587 F. Supp. 2d 888 (2008)

Facts

The United States was a party to the Montreal Convention, which was passed to replace the Warsaw Convention. The Montreal Convention applied to the international transport of people, baggage, or cargo by an aircraft carrier receiving payment for its service and included a provision establishing air-carrier liability for damages caused by flight delays. Article 29 of the Montreal Convention stated that tort and contract actions for damages from air transport were subject to the provisions of the Montreal Convention, including its liability limitations. Article 29 was equivalent to Article 24 of the Warsaw Convention, except that Article 29 applied not only to cargo transport, but also to the transport of passengers and baggage. Christian Narkiewicz-Laine (plaintiff) sued Scandinavian Airlines Systems (SAS) (defendant) in Illinois state court for breach of contract. Narkiewicz-Laine made two allegations against SAS under Illinois state law: (1) that he suffered damages because of a delayed SAS flight, and (2) that SAS failed to refund or rebook a ticket after he notified SAS that he was ill and unable to travel. SAS removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which was in the Seventh Circuit. Narkiewicz-Laine moved to remand the case, and SAS moved to transfer venue to a different division of the Northern District of Illinois. SAS argued that federal courts had federal-question jurisdiction over the action because the action arose under the Montreal Convention, a treaty in which the United States was a participant, and the Montreal Convention completely preempted the state-law claims asserted by Narkiewicz-Laine.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Reinhard, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership