District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 for thesecondandthird legs ofhisreturnjourney(Compl. at2). California byotherarrangements. Adelson flew second Adelson returnedtoSanFranciscoviathreeinternational flights. World PartnerAirlines”andwithAmerican AirlinesAdvantageAwardmiles. InJanuary2016, Adelson, M.D.,purchasedairtransportationfrom motion is move forjudgment onthepleadingspursuanttoRule12(c).Forreasonsherein,defendants’ BRITISH AIRWAYS, PLC, AMERICAN ,INC.,and v. JOEL W. ADELSON,M.D., Case 3:17-cv-00548-WHADocument38Filed05/24/17Page1of11 , from HelsinkitoLondon;and The followingfactsaretakenfrom thecomplaint. InDecember 2015,plaintiffJoel In thispersonalinjuryactionunderArticle17oftheMontrealConvention,defendants

G RANTED Defendants. Plaintiff, . Plaintiffmay fileamotion seekingleavetoamend. FOR THENORTHERNDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA IN THEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT INTRODUCTION third STATEMENT / , from LondontoNewYork—returning ondefendant BritishAirways,PLC’sflights SanFranciscotoDelhi,,through“One PLEADINGS FOR JUDGMENTONTHE ORDER GRANTINGMOTION No. C17-00548WHA First , from DelhitoHelsinki; United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 535–36 (1991). operations ofembarking ordisembarking. him tosufferbodilyinjury(3)tookplaceonboard theaircraftorincourseofany remedy underArticle17,Adelsonmust allegefactsthatshowan(1)accident(2)caused Chavez v.UnitedStates a medical doctorandlecturerassociatedwiththeUniversityofCalifornia,Irvine( interference withnormal activities,includingthoserequiredintheexerciseof hisprofession” as injuries.” Additionally,Adelsonincurred“extreme pain,disability,interruptionand injury tosome extenttothemuscles, tendons,andothercomponents” and“shockother arm andcausedalater-diagnosedrotatorcufftendontear,amongst other“seriousandprobable by alargemetal doorclosingonhim withoutwarning.Theimpact inhibitedtheuseofhisright attempted topassintothebuildingofTerminal 5,Adelsonwas“suddenlyandviolently”struck the securedareaofHeathrow,to“Terminal 5”via“inter-terminal transportation.”Ashe order followsfullbriefingandoralargument. Adelson failedtostateaclaim compensable underArticle17oftheMontrealConvention.This have answeredAdelson’samended complaint (Dkt.Nos.5,7,14). Montreal, May28,1999,S.TreatyDoc.No.106-45,1999WL 33292734.Bothdefendants formally knownastheUnificationofCertainRulesforInternationalCarriage byAir,Doneat Airlines, Inc.,andBritishAirways,PLC,underArticle17oftheMontrealConvention,whichis Case 3:17-cv-00548-WHADocument38Filed05/24/17Page2of11 Our courtofappealshasheld: Upon arrivalinLondonat“Gate3”ofHeathr Defendants nowmove forjudgment onthepleadings pursuanttoRule12(c),arguing Based ontheseallegations,Adelsonmade asingleclaim againstdefendantsAmerican remedy. in thecomplaint, takenastrue,entitletheplaintiff toalegal under bothrules,acourtmust determine whetherthefactsalleged substantially identicaltoanalysisunderRule12(b)(6) because, judgment asamatter oflaw.AnalysisunderRule12(c)is material fact indispute,andthemoving party isentitledto factual allegationsinthecomplaint astrue,thereisnoissueof Judgment on the pleadingsisproperlygrantedwhen,acceptingall , 683F.3d1102,1108–09(9thCir.2012).Tobe entitledtoalegal ANALYSIS Eastern Airlines,Inc.v. Floyd 2 ow ,Adelsonmade hisway,within , 499U.S.530, id. at2–3). United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Relating toInternationalTravel byAir,Oc following two treaties.Forexample: Convention, Art.55.Thisisimportant becausetherearesome notabledifferencesbetweenthe Ibid accomplish “uniformity ofrulesgoverningclaims arisingfrom internationalairtransportation.” the principleofrestitution.”LikeWarsaw Convention,theMontrealConventionsoughtto of consumers ininternationalcarriagebyairandtheneedforequitablecompensation basedon Convention andrelatedinstruments” and“theimportance ofensuringprotectiontheinterests Montreal Conventionrecognizedboth“theneedtomodernize andconsolidatetheWarsaw by thelatter. That compromise prohibitedtheuseof liabilitywaiversbytheformer whilelimiting recovery scheme premised onacompromise betweeninternationalaircarriersand their globalcustomers. (1999). TheWarsaw Conventionaddressedthatpracticebycreatingacomprehensive liability liability incaseof injury.” endeavored torequirepassengers,asaconditionofairtravel,relieveorreducethecarrier’s ,datesbackto1929. contracting oractualcarrierasunderstoodundertheMontrealConvention. can bemade againstAmerican Airlinesb of embarking ordisembarking, oronboardanaircraft. British Airways—namely, thattheaccidentdidnotoccurincourseofanyoperations fails toproffer sufficient facts tosatisfy thethirdelement astobothAmerican Airlinesand Case 3:17-cv-00548-WHADocument38Filed05/24/17Page3of11 . 1 The Warsaw Convention isformally TheWarsaw knownastheConventionforUnification ofCertainRules 49 U.S.C.§10105. The MontrealConventionsupersedestheWarsaw Convention entirely. Seventy yearslater,theMontrealConventionupdatedthisscheme. Thepreamble tothe .T Both sidesagreethattheMontrealConventionapplieshere. 1. Defendants raisetwoissueswithAdelson’spleading. Ibid HE . M ONTREAL El AlIsraelAirlines,Ltd.v.TsuiYuanTseng C ONVENTION t. 12,1929,49Stat.3000,137 L.N.T.S.11(1934), 1 ecause American AirlineswasnotAdelson’s Atthattime, “[m]any internationalaircarriers. . 3 Second First , defendantsarguethatnoclaim , defendantsargueAdelson

Its predecessor,the , 525U.S.155,169 reprinted innote See Montreal

United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Compagnie NationaleAir to recoverforinjuriesoccurring duringtransitthroughairportfacilities,citing asserting thatourcourtof appealshasrepeatedlyheldthatArticle17does notpermit apassenger they cannotbeheldliableunderArticle17.Defenda an allegedinjuryoutsideoftheoperationsembarking orafter theoperationsofdisembarking, embarking ordisembarking” inArticle17.Ifanaircarriersucceedsplacingtheoccurrenceof This disputeprimarily concernsthemeaning of“inthecourseany operationsof F.3d 1125,1127n.2(9thCir.2014). continuing applicationtotheMontrealConvention. the same, and,asaresult,certainlegalprecedentsdevelopedundertheWarsaw Conventionhave Mar. 1,2007)(JudgeMarilynPatel). Convention Art.21; liable solongasitcanprovethatthedamage wasnotduetoitsownnegligence.Montreal (approximately $135,000).Totheextentsuchdamages exceed 100,000SDR,thecarrierisnot the MontrealConvention,carrierisstri Montreal Convention).Thelegalstandardregardingdamages alsochanged.UnderArticle21of Ehrlich v.AmericanAirlines Case 3:17-cv-00548-WHADocument38Filed05/24/17Page4of11 .S Article 17oftheMontrealConventionprovides: 2. Nevertheless, most provisionsoftheMontrealandWarsaw Conventionsaresubstantially of theoperationsembarking ordisembarking. so sustainedtookplaceonboardtheaircraftorin thecourseofany suffered byapassenger,iftheaccidentwhichcauseddamage death orwoundingofapassengeranyotherbodilyinjury The carriershallbeliablefordamage sustainedintheeventof a treatythatfavorspassengersratherthanairlines. Hence, commentators havedescribedtheMontrealConventionas equitable compensation basedontheprincipleofrestitution.”[] of consumers ininternationalcarriagebyairandtheneedfor recognized “theimportance of approved thattreatybecause,among otherreasons,they the contractingpartiestoMontrealConventionexpressly [Warsaw] Conventionwastolimit theliabilityofaircarriers. Whereas theprimary aim ofthecontractingpartiesto COPE OF see Krugerv.UnitedAirLines,Inc. L IABILITY , 360F.3d366,371n.4(2ndCir.2004)(quotingthepreamble tothe , 549F.2d1256,1261–62 (9thCir.1977); U NDER ctly liableupto100,000specialdrawingrights A

RTICLE ensuring protectionoftheinterests 4 See nts arguethatAdelsonisoutsidethisscope, 17.

, 481F.Supp.2d1005,1008(N.D.Cal. Narayanan v.BritishAirways Schmidkunz v. Maugnie v. , 747 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 operations “asessentiallythe physicalactivityofenteringanairplane.” dictionaries of itstime andsettled on thefollowing definition for theFrenchword “operation”: 38 (2ndCir.1975),and d’embarquement etdedebarquement.” Toillicittheplainmeaning, overthepassenger,allattime oftheaccident. activity thepassengerwasengagedin,(2)’s location,and(3)thecontrolof plain meaning ofArticle 17andtheConvention’s of thepassenger.Instead, thedecisionssettledonanapproachtheyfelt bettercomported withthe embarking ordisembarking” language,rejectedanapproachthatlookedprimarily atthelocation dead andmore thanfortyothersinjured.Bothdecisions,interpretingArticle 17’s“operationsof toaviciousactofterrorastheypreparedboardflightNewYork,leavingthree historical event—inthetransitloungeofanairportGreece,twoterroristssubjectedaline 1977). explaining theflexibleapproachesemployed in of Article17butitdidsettleona“more flexibleinterpretationofthelanguageinArticle17”after meaning ofArticle17.” circumstances surroundingapassenger’sinjuries,viewedagainstthebackgroundofintended defendants proffer.Ourcourtofappealsinstead“requiresanassessment ofthetotal both explore thereasoningofboth on thefactsofeachcase.” proposition buttheyarecontrolling. Airways PLC Scandinavian AirlinesSystem Case 3:17-cv-00548-WHADocument38Filed05/24/17Page5of11 Schmidkunz 2 Thestrictinterpretationthat this“more flexible The official versionof thetext,writteninFrench,reads“aucours detoutesoperations To adequatelyapplythefact-basedapproachadoptedby “Whether apassengerisembarking ordisembarking isaquestionoffederallawdecided Maugnie , 41F.3d535,540n.6(9thCir.1994).Thesedecisionsdonotsupportdefendants’ , 549F.2dat1260–62. and Lathigra Evangelinos v.TransWorldAirlines,Inc. Maugnie Schmidkunz , 628F.2d1205,1207–08(9thCir.1980);and Day , expresslyrejectedcreatinganinflexibleruleliketheone , 549F.2dat1262. and Evangelinos 2 , 628F.2dat1207. Day v.TransWorldAirlines,Inc. interpretation” isrelativetointerprets theembarking 5 relevant history,bylookingprimarily to(1)the . Bothdecisionsconfrontedthesame Maugnie Maugnie Maugnie didnotstatetheintendedmeaning Maugnie , 550F.2d152,155(3rdCir. , 549F.2dat1259. , thecontrollingdecisionfor Day examined theFrench , itisnecessaryto Lathigra v.British , 528F.2d31, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Maugnie Finding shewasactingatherowndirectiona corridor “neitherownednorleasedbyAirFrance,” theairlineofflightshearrivedon. airline’s gatetomake herconnectingflightwhensheslippedandfellinacommon passenger that thedelegates’rejectioncompelled astrictreadingofArticle17. -to-aerodrome approach,optinginsteadforthecurrentversion.Thedefendantsargued aerodrome of destination.” travelers .enter[ed]theaerodrome ofdeparture,uptothemoment whentheyle[ft]the preliminary draftoftheConventionthatimposed Evangelinos through theterminal.” check. Duringthisnecessaryprocess,“[t]hepassengerswerenotfreeagentsroaming atwill embarking andunderthecontrolofairlineasitsagentsdirectedoversawtheirsecurity meaning ofArticle17thusplacedthelined-uppassengersunquestionablyinprocess “[A] groupofprocedurescombined toachievearesult.” Maugnie were doing.” injuries sustainedbypassengersattimes whentheairlinehadnocontroloverwhatpassengers Further, “[t]hedebatesindicate[d]thattheprin disembarkation operations contemplated byArticle17. liability .forallaccidentswithinthelimits ofthedepartingorarrivalaerodromes.” however, that“[t]hemost thatcanbesaidisth while waitingforhernext flightonadifferent 500 yardsfrom theboardinggateina common passengerareaof theterminal afterdeplaningand Case 3:17-cv-00548-WHADocument38Filed05/24/17Page6of11 The debatesofthedelegatesconsideringWarsaw Conventionalsoguided With thisreasoninginmind, ourcourtofappeals assessedthecircumstances in The plaintiffin heldthatunlikethepassengersin , 549F.2dat1262.There,thepassengerhaddeplanedandproceededtowardadifferent . TheComite InternationaleTechniqued’ExpertsJuridiqueAeriensprovideda Id. at 158n.13. Schmidkunz Id. at33–34. Evangelinos , 628F.2dat1207,similarly slippedandfellapproximately , 550F.2dat157.Thedelegatesexpresslyrejectedthis Day nd wasnolongerunderthecontrolofAirFrance, at thedraftsmen rejectedtheconceptofautomatic airline. Shehadnotreceived herboardingpass, cipal fearwasthatcarrierswouldbeliablefor and 6 liabilityoncarriers“from themoment whenthe Evangelinos Id. Day at1262. , 528F.3dat33n.7.Theplain , theirplaintiffhadcompleted the Evangelinos found, Day Id. at158. and United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 disembarking. Applyingthisstandard, and determine whethertheywereinthecourseofany oftheoperationsembarking or 12). Thetotalcircumstances, rather,surroundingthepassenger’sinjury must beassessedto while apassengerismerely transitingbetween twoflightsonairportpremises” (Dkt.No.18at settled law[inourcourtofappeals].thatAr the totalcircumstances must beperformed, citing 17” (Dkt.No.18at9–10).Notso.Tothecontrary, during transitthroughcommon areasofairportsfrom thescopeofcarrierliability underArticle our courtofappealsthat“excludesrecoveryagainstacarrierforpassengers’injuriesoccur Ibid. inside airportterminals, Schmidkunz interpreted consistentlywiththosedecisions. decision didnotanalyze actions .relatedtothe held theactionwasoutsidescopeofArticle17’sstatutelimitations, asit“applie[d]onlyto Warsaw Convention anditsstatuteoflimitations, whichhadexpiredfortheplaintiff,but reservations butwasnotinformed of thediscontinuance.BritishAirwaysattempted toapplythe discontinued. “Days”before theflight, theplaintiff calledBritishAirwaysandconfirmed her negligence afterbeingstrandedinNairobiforfivedaysbecauseherconnectingflighthadbeen control overher.Onthesefacts,relianceonArticle17wasruledout. was notimminently preparingtoboardtheplane,anddefendant’spersonnelexercisedno Case 3:17-cv-00548-WHADocument38Filed05/24/17Page7of11 (emphasis inoriginal).Defendantsarguethat Maugnie Finally, in declinedtoapplytheConvention’sliabilitylimits toactionsforinjuriesoccurring at foreignairports. terminal and passenger’s injuries.” requiring “anassessment ofthetotalcircumstances surroundinga Convention’s reachbeyondthoseinherentinourapproachhere, Thus, thesecasesinvolveadditionalrestrictionsonthe , Schmidkunz Lathigra Schmidkunz Lathigra common Maugnie performance , 41F.3dat536–37,aBritishAirwayspassengersuedtheairlinefor , and involvedpassengerswhoslippedandfellin stated: or areas whilemaking connectionsbetweencarriers Lathigra Schmidkunz oftheinternationaltransportation.” Maugnie primarily usingthe threefactorsfrom clearlydonotsupportwhatdefendantsinsistis“well Id. ticle 17doesnotapplyto‘accidents’thatoccur , 549F.2dat1262.Both 7 at539n.6.Explainingthat butitbrieflynotedthatitsholdingshouldbe Maugnie Lathigra Lathigra . reiteratessupposedprecedentfrom recognizedthatanassessment of Maugnie Id. Maugnie at538.The Day and and Lathigra United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 defendants’ arguments, Adelson’soppositionincludeswh an internationalflightticket. Defendants’motion is Article 17,establishingliabilitymerely becauseAdelsonwasinjuredinanairportwhilecarrying appeals ininterpretingArticle17.Tofindotherwise wouldgobeyondtheintendedmeaning of was engagedintheoperationsofembarking were tomake useoftheinternetintheirinvestigationHeathrow Airport. the Courtbelievesmore canbepledoninformation andbeliefastothecontrolissueifcounsel that defendantsareinsistinguponevidentiaryfacts and whatmade them responsible forerrantdoorsatHeathrow.Tobesure,theCourtisconcerned U.S. 662,678(2009).Theremust beallegations lacking factualsupportandthusfailtosatisfytheplausibilitystandardin transportation andenterTerminal 5”(Compl. at3).Thesearemere conclusorystatements entrances, and/orwereresponsibleforasafeandsecureplacetoexittheinter-terminal movement intotheTerminal 5buildingandanymanner ofingressthereto,includingdoorsand defendants, “ascommon carriers,hadandexercised meal ortopursue adifferentdetour. could havebeenheadeddirectlytothegateofhisconnectingflight did notincludeanyfactualallegationsrelatedtohisintentionsuponenteringtheterminal. He He allegedlywastravelingoninter-terminal transportationbetweenGate3andTerminal 5buthe the activitieshewasengagedinastheyrelatedtooperationsofembarking ordisembarking. secured areaofHeathrow.Astothenaturehisactivities,Adelson’scomplaint sayslittleabout connecting flight, despiteallegingitwasalsowithBritishAirwaysandthathetraveledwithinthe claim. Evangelinos Case 3:17-cv-00548-WHADocument38Filed05/24/17Page8of11 Adelson may, however,fileamotion seekingleavetoamend hiscomplaint. Contraryto Adelson failstoestablishunderthesethreefactors, oranyothercircumstances, thathe As totheairline’scontroloverAdelsonattime oftheaccident,heallegedthat As tohislocation,Adelson’sallegationsdonotreveallocationrelative , thisorderneverthelessholdsthatAdelson’scomplaint isinsufficienttostatea or disembarking asunderstoodbyourcourt of 8 explaininghowdefendantscontrolledAdelson beyond thereachofplaintiffatthisstage,but control overPlaintiff’sprogress,transfer,and G RANTED at beginstorevealaplausible theoryof . or headedtoarestaurantfor Ashcroft v.Iqbal , 556 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 alliance. the ticketsforBritishAirwaysflightsandanother airlinethroughthe“” airline contracting carrier.Thetheoryinhisoppositionis actual carrierbutfocusesprimarily onhisnewth Montreal Convention.Adelson,inhisopposition,di because thecomplaint didnotallegeAmerican Airlineswasacarrierasrequiredunderthe an Article17claim, Adelsonmay fileamotion seekingleavetoamend hiscomplaint. for securityorbaggageprocedures.Bearingin on hisnextflight,ratherthanconditionsimposed bytheairportorcountry,asmay bethecase supportable ifAdelsoncanshowthatthesewereconditionsimposed bytheairlineforembarking ‘operations ofembarking ordisembarking’” (Dkt passing throughthedoorandontodesignatedgateareeachallinherentindispensable another. Finally,hestatesthat“departingfr Airways controlswhichairplanesgotogateandhowapassengermay getfrom onegateto manages orcontrolstheterminal butmore detailedallegationsarepossible.HealsosaysBritish flights gothroughTerminal 5,andfewothercarriersusetheterminal. Itisstillunknownwho controlled hiseverymove becauseTerminal 5isamain BritishAirwaysglobalbase,most ofits terminal forshoppingorotheractivities(Dkt.No.27at4).HefurthersaysBritishAirways his connectingflight,andthathedidnotpursueexcursionsintopublicareasortothemain relief. There,Adelsonsaysheheldhisboardingticket,traveleddirectlytoTerminal 5tomake Case 3:17-cv-00548-WHADocument38Filed05/24/17Page9of11 In hiscomplaint, however,Adelsonmerely alleged: Defendants additionallyargueAdelsonfailedto .C 3. British Airways183from LHRtoJFK,NewYork, UnitedStates. British Air799from HelsinkitoLondonHeathrow(LHR),and was ticketedFinnairflight 22from DelhitoHelsinki (HEL); includes hisoutgoingtravel.” Onthereturn,January15,2016,he American AirlinesrecordlocatorunderID“MOHZSR,which American AirlinesAdvantageAwardmiles, andwereidentifiedon with OneWorld PartnerAirlineswere[sic]purchasedwith a medical conference.Thisticket,consistingofseveralflight legs purchased airtransportationfrom SanFranciscotoDelhi,India for In connectionwithhiswork,onoraboutDecember 16,2015,he ONTRACTING C ARRIER U NDER THE om thebus,walkingtodoorinquestion,and mind thestandardsetbyourcourt ofappealsfor 9 eory thatAmerican Airlineswasatleasta . No.27at5).Thispropositionmay belegally that American Airlineswasabletoissuehim sagrees thatAmerican Airlineswasnotan M stateaclaim againstAmerican Airlines ONTREAL C ONVENTION . United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 the issue, to severalnon-bindingdecisionsandonedecisionfr It isnotclearwhyArticle39appliesanddefendants’ authoritiesareof littleuse.Defendants cite carrier. Article39reads: Defendants relyonArticle39oftheMontrealConve F.3d 1023,1027(9thCir.2011). motion is alternatives. ThatcannotbewhattheMontreal formed. Onthistheory,AdelsoncouldsueVisaorMastercardanynumber ofcash Adelson used.doesnotallegeanycontr Thus, American Airlineswouldbeconnectedtothisactiononlybyreasonoftheairmiles such, Adelsonmay seekleavetoamend onthisclaim aswell. contractual relationship connected toAmerican AirlinesandOneWorld may yetsurvive.As provided tosupportfinding thislistexhaustiveorpersuasive.Well-pled allegationsdescribinga service usinganaircraftandcrewleasedfrom anothercarrier.” carrier operations,“includ[ing]code-shareope 106-45, 1999WL 33292734 (2000).Theanalysisprovides rely onthearticle-by-articleanalysisofMontreal Convention, American Airlinescannotbeacarrierunder against bothtogetherorseparately(Dkt.No. 45 allowsanactionfordamages tobebroughtagainstanactualcarrier, acontractingcarrier,or reprinted textofArticle39.Parent Case 3:17-cv-00548-WHADocument38Filed05/24/17Page10of11 Defendants alsobelieveAdelsoncannotcurehi Chubb InsuranceCompanyofEurope,S.A.v.MenloWorldwideForwarding,Inc. G RANTED proof tothecontrary. Convention. Suchauthorityshallbepresumed intheabsenceof respect tosuchpartasuccessivecarrierwithinthemeaning ofthis contracting carrier,thewholeorpartofcarriage,butisnotwith actual contractor”)performs, byvirtueofauthorityfrom the consignor, andanotherperson(hereinafterreferredtoas“the or consignorwithapersonactingonbehalfofthepassenger contract ofcarriagegovernedbythisConventionwithapassenger referred toas“thecontractingcarrier”)aprincipalmakes a The provisionsofthisChapterapplywhenaperson(hereinafter onthisclaim aswell. Chubb hetically, defendantsquoteaportionof isrelegatedtotheendof astringcitethatfollows the 18 at13).Thisdecisiondoesnotexplainwhy ny allegationbroughtbyAdelson.Defendantsalso rations andoperationswhereonecarrieroffers Conventioncontemplated. Assuch,defendants’ 10 act betweenAmerican Airlinesandhimself was om ourcourtofappealsthatisunrelatedto ntion todefineactualcarrierandcontracting s claim ifheweregivenleavetoamend. examples ofcontractingcarrier/actual Ibid reprinted in . Thereisnoauthority Chubbs S. TreatyDoc.No. statingArticle , 634 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ae: a 4 07 Dated: May24,2017. Inc., andBritishAirways,PLC. motion seekingleavetoamend willresultinjudgment infavorofdefendantsAmerican Airlines, addressed herein.Themotion shouldbeaccompanied byaredlinedcopy.Failuretotimely filea deficiencies identifiedinthisorder,aswellanyothersraiseddefendants’motion butnot should affirmatively demonstrate howtheproposedfirstamended complaint correctsthe motion noticedonthenormal 35-daycalendar.Adelsonmust pleadhisbestcase.Hismotion Case 3:17-cv-00548-WHADocument38Filed05/24/17Page11of By IT ISSOORDERED. For theforegoingreasons,defendants’motion forjudgment onthepleadingsis J UNE 1 ATNOON , Adelsonmay seekleavetoamend thedismissed claims byaformal CONCLUSION 11 U W NITED ILLIAM S TATES A LSUP D ISTRICT J G UDGE RANTED .