Opinion
CASE NO. 01-3055-CV-KING.
March 26, 2002
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Defendant Sky Chefs' Motion for Summary Judgement, filed on February 4, 2002. Plaintiff filed a response on February 14, 2002. Sky Chefs filed a reply on March 6, 2002.
I. Standard of Review
Summary judgment is appropriate only where it is shown that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ. p. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). If the record as a whole could not lead a rational fact-finder to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). On a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the evidence and resolve all inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). There is no requirement that the trial judge make findings of fact. Id. at 251.
The moving party bears the burden of pointing to that part of the record which shows the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. If the movant meets its burden, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to establish that a genuine dispute of material fact exists. See Hairston v. Gainesville Sun Pub. Co., 9 F.3d 913, 918 (11th Cir. 1993). To meet this burden, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and "come forward with significant, probative evidence demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact." Chanel, Inc. v. Italian Activewear of Florida, Inc., 931 F.2d 1472, 1477 (11th Cir. 1991). If the evidence relied on is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in favor of the non-moving party, then the court should refuse to grant summary judgment. Hairston, 9 F.3d at 919. However, a mere scintilla of evidence in support of the non-moving party's position is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. If the evidence is merely colorable or is not significantly probative, summary judgment is proper. See id. at 249-50.
II. Background
On September 30, 2000, the Plaintiff was a passenger on American flight number 989 from Miami to San Jose, Costa Rica. During the flight, Plaintiff claimed to be ill from eating some cheese which was served to him as part of the in-flight meal. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant American Airlines served the cheese that was supplied by Defendant Sky Chefs.
III. State Claims
Both the United States and Costa Rica are signatories to the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Transportation by Air, signed at Warsaw, On October 12, 1929 (the "Warsaw Convention").
Plaintiff concedes that the incident is subject to the provisions of Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention. Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention states, "[t]he carrier is 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." Plaintiff argues that its state law claims against Sky Chefs should be allowed because they are not inconsistent with the Warsaw Convention.
The Supreme Court is clear that "recovery for a personal injury . . . if not allowed under the Convention is not available at all." El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd. v. Tseng, 525 U.S. 155, 161 (1999). The Court further stated that "[r]ecourse to local law . . . would undermine the unifrom regulation of international air carrier liability that the Warsaw Convention was designed to foster." Id. The Warsaw Convention is Plaintiffs exclusive remedy, and Plaintiffs state law claims against Defendant Sky Chefs must fail. Id., at 675.
Plaintiff has asked that if the Court grants summary judgement that it does so without prejudice to amend the complaint for the fourth time. The Court finds that to allow the Plaintiff to amend the complaint after eight months pursuant to a motion for summary judgement would unduly prejudice Defendant Sky Chefs. Accordingly, after a careful review of the record, and the Court being otherwise fully advised, it is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant Sky Chefs Motion for Summary Judgement be, and the same is hereby, GRANTED.
DONE and ORDERED in chambers at the James Lawrence King Federal Justice Building and United States District Courthouse, Miami, Florida, this 26th, March 2002.