## Facts

- An airline passenger sued an international air carrier in Illinois state court for breach of contract arising from two international-travel incidents.
- First incident (March 2006): a flight delay allegedly caused the passenger to miss a connection and arrive about 1.5 hours late.
- Second incident (June 2006): the passenger allegedly became too ill to travel and sought a refund or rebooking; the carrier allegedly refused.
- The complaint pleaded only Illinois breach-of-contract theories and did not invoke any treaty or federal statute.
- The carrier removed to federal court, asserting federal-question jurisdiction on the theory that the Montreal Convention completely preempted the state-law claims.
- The passenger moved to remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the carrier also moved to transfer venue within the district.

## Issues

1. Whether the Montreal Convention completely preempts state-law breach-of-contract claims arising from international air carriage so as to create federal-question jurisdiction for removal.
2. If federal jurisdiction existed, whether the case should be transferred to another division within the same federal district.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion to remand, holding it lacked federal-question jurisdiction.
- The court held the Montreal Convention does not completely preempt state-law causes of action for removal purposes.
- The court denied the motion to transfer venue as moot in light of remand.

## Legal Principles

- Federal-question jurisdiction ordinarily exists only when a federal issue appears on the face of a properly pleaded complaint; a federal defense does not create removal jurisdiction.
- Complete preemption is an exceptional doctrine requiring a clear indication that federal law entirely displaces state-law claims and converts them into federal claims.
- The Montreal Convention’s liability rules and limits (including Article 29’s “however founded” language) function as substantive conditions and limitations on recovery and may operate as defenses, but they do not, without more, confer federal jurisdiction over state-law pleadings.

## Conclusion

Because the passenger’s complaint asserted only state-law breach-of-contract claims and the Montreal Convention did not completely preempt those claims for jurisdictional purposes, removal was improper; the case was remanded to Illinois state court and the venue-transfer motion was denied as moot.


Narkiewicz-Laine v. Scandinavian Airline Sys., 587 F. Supp. 2d 888 (N.D. Ill. 2008)