Opinion
00-2092 SECTION "T" (4)
April 2, 2001
Before the Court is a Motion to Remand filed on behalf of the plaintiffs, Luis A. Balart and Harriet W. Balart. The parties waived oral argument and the matter was submitted for the Court's consideration on the briefs alone January 17, 2001. The Court, having considered the memoranda of counsel, the Court record, the applicable law and jurisprudence, is fully advised in the premises and ready to rule.
ORDER AND REASONS
I. BACKGROUND:
On June 20, 1999, the plaintiffs were ticketed passengers aboard a Delta Airlines flight from Atlanta, Georgia to New Orleans, Louisiana. The plaintiffs submit that unbeknownst to them their luggage was shipped on an earlier flight arriving in New Orleans two to three hours prior to their arrival, rather than being shipped on the plane in which they flew. It is the plaintiffs' contention that after the luggage arrived in New Orleans it was left unattended in the baggage claim area. Plaintiffs have filed suit alleging that the defendants took no action to secure and/or otherwise care for their luggage in conformity with Delta's obligation as a custodian or bailee of the property.
Plaintiffs originally filed suit in the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana on June 14, 2000. On July 14, 2000, Delta Air Lines, Inc. ("Delta") removed the case to this Court based upon federal question jurisdiction, namely that claims against interstate air carriers which seek damages for lost goods arise under federal common law. Plaintiffs now seek to remand the case back to state court.
II. ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES:
A. Arguments of the Plaintiffs in Support of the Motion to Remand:
The plaintiffs argue that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the allegations contained on the face of plaintiffs' petition and as such, the matter should be remanded to state court. Plaintiffs contend that their claims arise solely under Louisiana state law. The actions of Delta in failing to properly care for and/or otherwise secure the luggage occurred after it arrived in the New Orleans airport. Plaintiffs are not complaining that the luggage was damaged or lost in transit. Plaintiffs submit that this is a crucial distinction that destroys the existence of federal common law. The claimed negligence of Delta arises in its capacity as a bailee of the luggage and Delta's failure to secure or otherwise care for the luggage in the baggage claim area, not in its capacity as an air carrier of the luggage. Because the allegations contained in the petition are not based upon the loss of goods during interstate transportation, plaintiffs submit that defendants have not met its burden of proving that the claim is governed by federal common law.
B. Arguments of the Defendant in Opposition to the Motion to Remand:
The defendant submits that the Fifth Circuit has held that a claim for lost baggage arises under federal common law. Sam L. Majors Jewelers v. ABX, Inc., 117 F.3d 922 (5th Cir. 1997). That Court further held that state law causes of action against an air carrier for lost or damaged goods are preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, 49 U.S.C. § 41713(b)(l) (the "ADA"). Id. Defendant argues that this is clearly a lost baggage claim and since jurisprudence provides that these claims arise out of federal common law, removal is proper. Plaintiffs, however, attempt to distinguish their claim from other lost baggage claims because the baggage may have been lost at the airport. Delta contends that this argument lacks merit as no meaningful distinction exists. The baggage was lost before it was delivered; therefore, plaintiffs claim is for lost baggage under federal common law. Furthermore, there are no cases to support such a distinction. The case law considers a claim as a lost baggage claim regardless of where, when, or how the baggage is lost if the loss occurs while in the custody of the air carrier and the baggage is not delivered to its owner. Finally, it is asserted that the baggage remained in interstate commerce even after it arrived at the airport as the carrier's liability extinguishes only upon delivery. In this case, the baggage was lost before it was delivered to plaintiffs and as such, federal law applies.
III. LAW AND ANALYSIS:
A. Law on Removal and Remand:
Removal of cases initially filed in state court are governed generally by 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Section 1441(a) permits removal of"any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1441. United States Courts have original jurisdiction of"all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
A defendant who desires to remove a civil action from a state court to a federal district court must file a notice of removal within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action is based. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Furthermore, 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) provides that "[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded."
In this case, as the amount in controversy does not reach the federal minimum, jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship cannot be maintained thus the propriety of removal turns on whether the case falls within the original "federal question" jurisdiction of the United States District Courts. In making this determination, the Court looks to the allegations in the plaintiffs' "wellpleaded complaint." See, Carpenter v. Wichita Falls Independent School District, 44 F.3d 362, 365 (citingWilson v. Republic Iron Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92 (1921). "[A] defendant may not remove a case to federal court unless the plaintiffs complaint establishes that the cae`arises under' federal law." Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers, 463 U.S. 1, 103 S.Ct. 2841 (1983). Federal question jurisdiction can be supported where the cause of action arises under federal common law principles. See, Sam L. Majors Jewellers, supra, (citing Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, 406 U.S. 91, 92 S.Ct. 1385, 31 L.Ed.2d 712 (1972)).
B. The Court's Analysis:
In Sam L. Majors Jewelers, the plaintiff sued the air carrier for the value of three packages containing jewelry that were lost after being entrusted to the carrier for shipment. The Fifth Circuit thoroughly analyzed the federal common law and legislative acts in the area concluding that the savings clause in the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 preserved the clearly established federal common law cause of action against air carriers for lost shipments. Therefore, it held that because the negligence action pled arose under federal common law, jurisdiction over the action existed. Id. This Court notes that the Fifth Circuit did specifically provide a footnote in its opinion which provides:
Our decision in this matter is heavily influence[d] by the policy consideration . . . in which national uniformity of a single rule is of vital importance . . . we emphasize that we only hold that a cause of action against an interstate air carrier for claim for property lost or damaged in shipping arises under federal common law.Sam L. Majors Jewelers, 117 F.3d at 929, fn. 16.
It is the "in shipping" language of this footnote that plaintiffs try to distinguish their case from other similar cases. Plaintiffs contend that the holding in Sam L. Majors Jewellers is limited to situations where the property is lost or damaged while in shipping, and therefore is inapplicable to the situation in this case, where the property was lost after being shipped. As such, plaintiffs argue that the cause of action arises out of Louisiana state law rather than federal common law. While the Court commends the novel approach taken by plaintiffs' counsel in attempting to differentiate this claim, this Court does not view this as a meaningful distinction. The Court sees no reason to treat this case any differently from any other lost baggage case. While the plaintiffs contend that they were informed by Delta personnel that their bags arrived in New Orleans prior to their arrival, the possibility is just as likely that their bags were put on a flight to some other destination, or arrived in New Orleans at some later time. All we do know for certain is that the plaintiffs did not retrieve their luggage upon arrival in New Orleans, as such, the baggage was lost in shipping.
There is no dispute that jurisprudence provides a federal common law cause of action against air carriers for lost shipments. Because plaintiffs' negligence claims arise under federal common law, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction and removal was proper.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Remand filed on behalf of the plaintiffs, Luis A. Balart and Harriet W. Balart, be and the same is hereby DENIED.