MEMORANDUM ORDER

JED S. RAKOFF, United State District Judge.

In September, 1995, plaintiffs My Thach and Huong T. Nguyen commenced this suit in New York State Supreme Court against defendant China Airlines, Ltd. ("CAL"), alleging various injuries arising out of CAL's refusal to allow Thach to board a CAL flight from Taiwan to New York in the mistaken belief that his passport was fraudulent. Specifically, Thach alleged that CAL was liable for unlawfuL detention (first claim), conversion of his passport (second claim), conversion of his money (third claim), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (fourth claim). Plaintiff Nguyen, Thach's fiancee, alleged that she likewise suffered intentional infliction of emotional distress (fifth claim) while awaiting Thach's return to New York.

After removing the case to federal court, CAL asked the Court either to dismiss the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens, or, alternatively, to award it summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims are barred by the terms and conditions of the Warsaw Convention, are preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994, and are barred by CAL's tariffs on file with the United States Department of Transportation. Plaintiffs Thach and Nguyen cross moved for leave to amend the complaint to add still further causes of action and for a stay of CAL's motions pending such amendment. The motions were extensively briefed and, following reassignment of the case to this judge on March 1, 1997, were orally argued to the Court on March 28, 1997.

Thereafter, following full review of the parties' written submissions and oral arguments, the Court issued an order on March 31, 1997, denying defendant's motion to dismiss but granting summary judgment to defendant on all but the third cause of action, while denying plaintiff's motion to amend. This memorandum will serve to confirm those rulings and to state the reasons there for.

BACKGROUND

The facts and allegations pertinent to the instant motions are the following. In July 1995, Thach sought to fly home to New York from Vietnam on a round trip ticket he had previously purchased from CAL in New York. Thach was traveling home earlier than originally scheduled because Nguyen, who had remained in New York, was experiencing difficulties with a pregnancy.

At an intermediate stop in Taiwan, all passengers bound for New York were required to change planes. Before the passengers boarded the new aircraft, CAL officials reinspected their travel documents. Although Thach held a valid, newly issued United States passport, the employee on duty at the CAL transit counter, Ms. Hui-Tzu Lin, became suspicious because of its new appearance and because plaintiff "looked" Vietnamese. Lin had previously encountered Vietnamese passengers seeking entry to the United States without proper travel documentation.

Lin took Thach's passport to the Taiwan Aviation Police Bureau to authenticate its validity. Mr. Jih-Ting Lee, an employee of the Taiwanese Police, inspected the passport. Although Lee expressed doubts about the validity of Thach' s passport, he was not able to confirm his suspicions. Accordingly, Lin returned the passport to Thach, and Thach was permitted to board the flight.

A short while later, however, Lee returned to the CAL transit counter with a United States passport belonging to another passenger and told Lin that he now believed Thach' s passport was a fake because the three red stars on the side of Thach's passport photograph had a different tint than the stars on the passport he was examining. Lee and Lin went to the boarding gate where they located Thach and re-inspected his passport. Based upon a comparison of the two passports, Lee mistakenly concluded that Thach's passport was fraudulent, and so advised Lin. Lin accordingly informed Thach that he would not be permitted to travel on CAL to New York.

Instead, Thach was detained at the airport by the Taiwanese Police for approximately ten to twelve hours, without access to a phone. During this time, the Taiwanese Police made no effort to determine more definitively the authenticity or validity of Thach's passport. Instead, apparently still acting on the assumption that Thach was Vietnamese, the Taiwanese Police forced Thach to board the next available flight back to Vietnam, using a ticket that CAL purchased with Thach's credit card. Only after considerable further delay was Thach able to return home to New York.

DISCUSSION

Forum Non Conveniens

Turning first to CAL's motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the ground of forum non conveniens, the Court finds that although Taiwan provides an "adequate alternative forum that has jurisdiction to hear the case,"Pergrine Myanmar. Ltd. v. Segal, 89 F.3d 41, 46 (2d Cir. 1996), New York is still the forum that "will be most convenient and will best serve the ends of justice." Id. at 46. In so determining, "the court starts with a presumption in favor of the plaintiff's choice of forum," id. at 46, recognizing that "unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed."Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947). While, in addition, the Court must take account of a variety of other factors, see id. at 508-09 — such as relative ease of access to sources of proof, availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses, cost of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses, enforceability of any judgment, administrative difficulties stemming from court congestion, the reluctance to impose jury duty on a community that has no relation to the litigation, the local interest in having local controversies decided "at home," and the appropriateness of holding the trial in a forum familiar with the applicable law — the Court finds that most of these factors do not bear materially, if at all, on the choice of forum issue here presented. Those that do, moreover, either weigh in favor of retention of the suit in New York or are of insufficient weight to overcome the strong presumption in favor of the selected forum. In particular, while defendant specially stresses the fact that there are important witnesses in Taiwan, some of whom may be either unable or unwilling to travel to New York for trial, this potential difficulty is largely reduced, if not eliminated, by plaintiffs' repeated representations, both in their papers and at oral argument, that they will stipulate to the admissibility of "100% of the testimony" of any such foreign-based witnesses proffered by defendant in affidavit or deposition form, provided only that such testimony substantively corresponds to the facts and information set forth in defendant's "3(g) statement" and to the affidavits and documents submitted in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment. This stipulation obviates the primary objection to retaining the New York forum, and, accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens is denied.

The Warsaw Convention

Turning next to defendant's summary judgment motion, the Court confronts several important questions under the Warsaw Convention. The Convention, which exclusively governs those suits within its purview, see Pflug v. Egyptair Corp., 961 F.2d 26, 28 (2d Cir. 1992), applies "to all international transportation of persons". 49 U.S.C. § 40105, Note (Article 1(1)). "International transportation" is in turn defined in Article 1(2) to include:

any transportation in which, according to the contract made by the parties, the place of departure and the place of destination, whether or not there be a break in the transportation . . ., are situated either within the territories of two High Contracting Parties, or within the territory of a single High Contracting Party, if there is an agreed stopping place within a territory subject to the sovereignty . . . of another power, even though that power is not a party to this convention.

The relevant transportation "contract" is the passenger ticket. Shen v. Japan Airlines, 918 F. Supp. 686, 688 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd without op., 43 F.3d 1459 (2d Cir. 1994); Rabinowitz v. Scandinavian Airlines, 741 F. Supp. 441, 443 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). Thach's ticket provided for round-trip travel from New York to Vietnam to New York, with stopping points in Taiwan. The place of departure is New York and the place of destination, depending on how the trip is viewed, is either Vietnam or New York. See Petrire v. Spantax, S.A., 756 F.2d 263, 265 (2d Cir.),cert. denied, 474 U.S. 846 (1985) ("[F]or the purposes of the Warsaw Convention, the `destination' of a round trip journey is the same as the starting point [.]"). It is undisputed that the United States and Vietnam are High Contracting Parties to the Convention. See U.S. Dep't of State, Treaties in Force, 303-304 (1995). Accordingly, Thach's travel was "international transportation" as defined by the Convention and the Convention therefore governs this lawsuit.

So far as most of plaintiffs' claims are concerned, plaintiff's right to recover under the Convention is defined and limited by Article 17 of the Convention, which provides:

The carrier shall be liable for damage sustained in the event of the death or wounding of a passenger or any other bodily injury suffered by a passenger, if, the accident which caused the damage so sustained took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.

While plaintiff argues that the occurrences involving Thach do not constitute an "accident" in terms of Article 17, the clear weight of authority in this District is to the contrary. See, e.g., Tseng v. El Al Airlines, Ltd., 919 F. Supp. 155 (S.D.N.Y. 1996); Shen, 918 F. Supp. at 687. Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. 392, 405 (1985) ("liability under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention arises only if a passenger's injury is caused by an unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger"). It is also clear that the accident occurred during "the operations of embarking or disembarking." See, Buonocore v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 900 F.2d 8, 10 (2d Cir. 1990).

However, in Eastern Airlines, Inc. v. Floyd, 499 U.S. 530, 552 (1991), the Supreme Court made clear that "an air carrier cannot be held liable under Article 17 when an accident has not caused a passenger to suffer death, physical injury, or physical manifestation of injury." In the case at bar, neither Thach nor Nguyen sustained any physical injuries. Thus, no recovery is available under Article 17 for any of plaintiffs' claims.

It follows that all of plaintiffs' claims must be dismissed unless recovery is available under some other provision of the Warsaw Convention. The only claim that so qualifies is Thach's third cause of action, for recovery of the price of his ticket (approximately $1,000). This claim may be brought pursuant to Article 19 of the Convention, which provides that a "carrier shall be liable for damage occassioned by delay in the transportation by air of passengers." 49 U.S.C. § 40105, Note; cf. Sassouni v. Olympic Airways, 769 F. Supp. 537, (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (holding Article 19 applies to claims for damages resulting from delay caused by bumping passenger from international flight). However, Thach's accompanying demand for $3 million in punitive damages on his third claim cannot stand, because punitive damages are not recoverable in actions governed by the Warsaw Convention. In re Air Disaster at Lockerbie Scotland on Dec. 21, 1988, 928 F.2d 1267, 1270 (2d Cir. 1991).

Having considered defendant's other arguments, the Court concludes that plaintiffs' third claim must survive, albeit in the limited respect specified above. Conversely, because the Warsaw Convention, as previously noted, provides the sole available state or federal remedy in these circumstances, plaintiffs' motion to amend its complaint to add various other alleged causes of action must be denied. Accordingly, the previous order of this Court is reaffirmed and the complaint shall go forward with Thach as the sole plaintiff and with the claims limited solely to the claim for approximately $1,000 for repayment of the ticket.

SO ORDERED.