Fisher v. Qantas Airways Ltd., 521 F. Supp. 3d 847 – Dist. Court, D. Arizona 2021
United States District Court, D. Arizona
Facts
At 852:
On October 18, 2018, Plaintiff and his wife flew from Tucson, Arizona to San Francisco, California on United Airlines. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 15.) On October 20, 2018, they flew from San Francisco, California to Sydney, Australia and continued to Auckland, New Zealand on Qantas aircraft. Id. Because Plaintiff’s wife needed wheelchair assistance, he and his wife boarded their flight in Sydney via a lift through the galley. (Doc. 10-1 at ¶ 8; Doc. 10-2 at ¶ 7.) According to Plaintiff, a flight attendant represented to them that upon their arrival in Auckland they would deplane using a wheelchair accessible jetway. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 18.) Contrary to the flight attendant’s representation, Plaintiff alleges Qantas did not provide any assistance when they arrived in Auckland and, as a result, they had to descend stairs to deplane. Id. at ¶¶ 19-21. Plaintiff proceeded down the 852*852 stairs with his wife behind him and with their two roll-on bags in tow, Id. at ¶ 22. As they neared the bottom of the, stairs, they both fell. Id. at ¶ 23. Plaintiff landed on his left hip and hit his head on the tarmac. Id. He seeks damages in the amount of at least “113,100 Special Drawing Rights of the International Monetary Fund.”[1] Id. at ¶¶ 27-28.
Issue(s)
Do the Arizona courts have personal jurisdiction over the defendant carrier under the Montreal Convention?
Discussion
While the Montreal Convention would confer jurisdiction on the United States as a general matter, the Court found that this would not extend to a conferral on Arizona, within the United States, given a lack of personal jurisdiction over the carrier in that State (Arizona).
In coming to this conclusion, the Court looked at:
- Qantas’ codeshare operations; and
- Qantas’ travel agent agreements.
With regard to codeshare operations that Qantas had with American Airlines, at 857:
Qantas admits that it operates under codeshare agreements and explains that, in this case, only Plaintiff’s return flight on American Airlines was a codes-hare flight. Relying upon Schaetzl-Saubert v. Turkish Airlines, Inc., 2:17-cv-00854-MMD-VCF, 2018 WL 1189266, at *3 (D. Nev. Mar. 7, 2018), Qantas argues mere operation of codeshare flights is insufficient for it to be considered at home in Arizona. In Schaetzl-Saubert, the district court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the defendant’s “interactive website and code-share arrangements with other airlines that fly directly to and from Nevada” made the defendant’s forum contacts “continuous and systematic.” Schaetzl-Saubert, 2:17-cv-00854-MMD-VCF, 2018 WL 1189266, at *3. Relying on Daimler, the district court explained that the “`continuous and systematic’ standard under the general jurisdictional analysis has been qualified to mean that those contacts must make the foreign corporation essentially at home in the forum state.” Id. (citing Daimler, 134 S. Ct. at 754). Applying this standard, the district court held that having arrangements to fly from cities within the United States to Las Vegas was insufficient to make the defendant foreign airline “essentially at home” in the state of Nevada. Id.
Plaintiff did not address Schaetzl-Saubert. Considering the holding in Schaetzl-Saubert, which applied the Daimler personal jurisdiction standard, Qantas’ mere operation under codeshare agreements is insufficient for this Court to find that Qantas is essentially at home in Arizona.
With regard to travel agency agreements that Qantas had, at 858:
Plaintiff argues that personal jurisdiction over foreign airlines—like Qantas— can be established through express contracts with agents that are authorized to sell a foreign airline’s tickets to forum state residents. (Doc. 13 at 3-4.) Plaintiff argues that since he bought his Qantas airline tickets from Katsinas[4]—a travel 858*858 agent that he contends has some type of contractual relationship with Qantas—Qantas is subject to general jurisdiction in Arizona. He relies upon Selke v. Germanwings GmbH, 261 F.Supp.3d 645, 654 (E.D. Va. 2017), Vergara v. Aeroflot, 390 F.Supp. 1266, 1269 (D. Neb. 1975), and Mohler v. Dorado Wings, Inc., 675 S.W.2d 404, 406-07 (Ky. Ct. App. 1984). (Doc. 13 at 3-4; Doc. 14 at 13-14.)
Except for Selke, the cases relied upon by Plaintiff were decided before the United States Supreme Court decision in Daimler. Plaintiff’s reliance on Selke[5] is conclusory in that he asserts, without any analysis, that “[w]here one uses an agent in a state (whether it be a travel agent or other airline), it is as if they themselves are transacting business in the state.” (Doc. 13 at 5.) Selke is also factually distinguishable from this case. In Selke, Germanwings had entered directly into ticketing agreements with United Airlines that expressly authorized United Airlines to sell its tickets to Virginia residents on its behalf. 261 F.Supp.3d at 655. The district court determined that Germanwings had an express agency agreement with United Airlines to sell tickets on its behalf and was paid a commission when it sold those tickets in Virginia. Id. Thus, the court concluded that “when Plaintiff’s purchased tickets from United for carriage on Germanwings Flight 9525, Germanwings was transacting business in Virginia.” Id. at 655-56.
Here, however, Plaintiff’s departure flight from Tucson, Arizona was on United Airlines and was purchased with “United mileage tickets.” (Doc. 14-1 at 36, ¶ 12.) Plaintiff as not established that travel agent Scott Katsinas was involved in Plaintiff’s purchase of these tickets. See Id. (“For Dr. Fisher’s trip to New Zealand in October 2018, Dr. Fisher flew with his wife Pat from Tucson to San Francisco with United Mileage tickets. From there, [Katsinas] issued Qantas Business Class revenue tickets from SFO to New Zealand, via Sydney, through tickets issued by Nexion.”).
Further distinguishing this case from Selke is that Qantas and Katsinas do not have a direct contractual relationship. Rather, Qantas has a contract with Tzell under which Tzell authorized agents were authorized to access Qantas inventory. (Doc. 15-1 at 2, ¶ 8.) According to Qantas, Nexion and its authorized agents are listed in the Tzell/Qantas contract. Id. Scott Katsinas admits being under contract with Nexion to issue Qantas tickets during the relevant time.
This Court finds that Qantas is not essentially at home in Arizona by virtue of its travel agent agreements.
The Court considered that a transfer to another court within the United States may be appropriate. At 863:
Because the Court is unable to determine whether all three requirements for transfer are met on the record before it, the parties will be ordered to brief whether this action may be transferred to another district court in the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. And, if so, to which jurisdiction the case should be transferred. The parties are encouraged to discuss the matter and, if deemed appropriate and agreeable, submit a stipulation and form of order agreeing to transfer venue to another district court.
Useful for
No US State-specific jurisdiction necessarily as a result of Article 33 MC99
