## Facts

- A group of Egyptian business travelers and an associate flew internationally toward Las Vegas for a convention and business meeting.
- They boarded Alaska Airlines Flight 694 from Vancouver, British Columbia, to Las Vegas on September 29, 2003, occupying most first-class seats.
- A first-class passenger reported the travelers behaved calmly and that flight attendants treated them harshly.
- A dispute arose when a traveler questioned a flight attendant about coach passengers using the first-class lavatory.
- Later, an older traveler stood near the front to stretch; a flight attendant ordered him to sit down in a loud and unpleasant manner.
- A flight attendant reported to the cockpit that she had “lost control” of the group, and the captain diverted the flight to Reno, Nevada.
- In Reno, law enforcement and TSA removed and interviewed the travelers; they were ultimately cleared and rebooked to Las Vegas on another airline.
- After the diversion, the airline reported the travelers to a joint terrorism task force, and some were detained by the FBI upon arrival in Las Vegas.
- The travelers arrived late to their meeting and alleged reputational and business damages from the diversion, removal, and terrorism-related reports.

## Issues

1. Under Article 10 of the Tokyo Convention, what standard governs an airline’s immunity for a captain’s diversion and disembarkation decision, and was summary judgment proper on that immunity?
2. To what extent does the Warsaw Convention preempt state-law defamation claims arising from airline statements connected to the diversion and removal of passengers?
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying leave to file a supplemental complaint asserting additional defamation allegations.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The court reversed summary judgment for the airline on the Warsaw Convention delay claim because Tokyo Convention Article 10 immunity depends on “reasonable grounds,” and the record allowed a jury to find the captain lacked reasonable grounds.
- The court held the Warsaw Convention preempted defamation claims only insofar as they arose during international carriage, including the operational process of disembarking; it reversed dismissal of defamation claims based on post-disembarkation statements.
- The court held it was error to deny leave to supplement where the proposed defamation allegations concerned non-preempted, post-flight statements.

## Legal Principles

- Tokyo Convention Article 10 grants immunity for onboard safety measures only when the aircraft commander had “reasonable grounds” to believe the measures were necessary to protect safety or good order.
- “Reasonable grounds” is not an “arbitrary and capricious” standard; it is a reasonableness inquiry that typically presents a fact question unsuitable for summary judgment when evidence permits competing inferences.
- The Warsaw Convention’s exclusivity and preemption reach claims tied to events occurring in international carriage, including the functional “operations of embarking or disembarking.”
- State-law defamation claims are preempted only when the allegedly defamatory statements are made as part of those carriage operations; post-disembarkation communications (such as later terrorism-related reports) fall outside the Convention’s scope.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit required application of a fact-driven “reasonable grounds” standard for Tokyo Convention immunity, allowing the delay claim to proceed to a jury, and limited Warsaw Convention preemption to defamation tied to disembarkation operations, permitting state-law claims based on later, post-flight statements and allowing supplementation on remand.


Eid v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 621 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2010)