Hornsby

Hornsby v. Lufthansa German Airlines

Good Law
593 F. Supp. 2d 1132·2009 WL 116962·2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5535
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJanuary 6, 2009CV 07-7594 ABC (Ex)California4,041 words

Opinion

Opinion

Collins, J.

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (“Motion”), filed on October 10, 2008, by Defendant Lufthansa German Airlines (“Lufthansa” or “Defendant”). Plaintiff Glenda M. Hornsby (“Hornsby” or “Plaintiff’) filed an Opposition on October 16, 2008, and Defendant filed a Reply on November 10, 2008. On November 14, 2008, the Court determined that the matter was appropriate for submission without oral argument, and took the matter under submission. Having considered the materials submitted by the parties and the case file, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant’s motion, as set forth below.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

For purposes of this motion, the parties appear to agree on the relevant facts, and the governing law. The only open question now is the proper interpretation of four words found in Article 33(2) of the Montreal Convention, an international treaty formally known as the “Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air Done at Montreal on 28 May 1999.” If these four words, “principal and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.