NARKIEWICZ-LAINE v. SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES SYSTEMS Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An airline removed a passenger’s state-law contract claims to federal court, arguing the Montreal Convention created federal jurisdiction. The court disagreed, finding the treaty only provides a defense, not a basis for removal, and remanded the case to state court.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that the Montreal Convention does not completely preempt state-law claims. Its liability limits function as an affirmative defense, which is insufficient to create federal question jurisdiction for removal under the complete preemption doctrine.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff Christian K. Narkiewicz-Laine filed a two-count breach of contract action against Scandinavian Airlines Systems (SAS) in Illinois state court. The first claim alleged that a flight delay on March 6, 2008, caused him to miss a connecting flight and arrive at his destination late. The second claim concerned a separate flight on June 21, 2006, for which SAS allegedly refused to provide a refund or re-booking after the plaintiff called in sick. SAS removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, asserting federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. SAS argued that the plaintiff’s first claim, involving a delay in international air travel, was governed by the Montreal Convention, a U.S. treaty. SAS contended that the Convention completely preempted the plaintiff’s state-law contract claim, thereby converting it into a federal claim for jurisdictional purposes. The plaintiff moved to remand the case to state court, arguing that his claims were simple state-law contract disputes and that the Convention did not create federal jurisdiction.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the Montreal Convention completely preempt state-law claims related to international air travel, thereby creating federal question jurisdiction sufficient for removal from state court?
No. The court held that the Montreal Convention does not completely preempt Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaeca
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does the Montreal Convention completely preempt state-law claims related to international air travel, thereby creating federal question jurisdiction sufficient for removal from state court?
Conclusion
This decision clarifies that within the Seventh Circuit, the Montreal Convention provides Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis
Legal Rule
Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, federal preemption is typically an affirmative defense Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor i
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the distinction between ordinary preemption and the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mo
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Montreal Convention does not completely preempt state-law claims for damages