Lam Wholesale, LLC v. United Airlines, Inc.

3 Citing cases

  1. Zurich Versicherungs Gesellschaft AG v. China E. Airlines Co.

    23-cv-5063-BMC (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2024)

    Second, DSV cites another case from this district in which the court determined that the limitations period began when the aircraft ought to have arrived, not when the carriage stopped. See LAM Wholesale, LLC v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 18-cv-3794, 2019 WL 1439098, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. March 31, 2019). But the court in LAM did not determine when the carriage stopped, and instead decided that on the facts before the court - which are distinguishable from those before this Court because of the amount of time between the aircraft landing and the cargo arriving to the plaintiff and because the cargo ended up at a different airport than was agreed upon - that the proper trigger was the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived.

  2. Badar v. Swissport U.S., Inc.

    492 F. Supp. 3d 54 (E.D.N.Y. 2020)   Cited 3 times

    "The Montreal Convention ‘unifie[d] and replace[d] the system of liability that derives’ from the Warsaw Convention, many provisions of the conventions are similar, and courts continue to evaluate provisions of the Montreal Convention using ‘cases interpreting equivalent provisions in the Warsaw Convention.’ " LAM Wholesale, LLC v. United Airlines, Inc. , 2019 WL 1439098, at *2 n.2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Hunter v. Deutsche Lufthansa AG , 863 F. Supp.2d 190, 205 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) ); See also,Safa v. Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft, Inc. , 42 F. Supp.3d 436 (E.D.N.Y. 2014), aff'd , 621 F. App'x. 82 (2d Cir. 2015) (summary order) ("[T]he Court may rely on precedent interpreting the Warsaw Convention's parallel provisions when addressing claims under the Montreal Convention" (citation omitted)). The Montreal Convention "applies to all international carriage of persons, baggage or cargo performed by aircraft for reward."

  3. Sueta v. Delta Airlines, Inc.

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 32889 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

    The Montreal Convention unified and replaced the Warsaw Convention, but since many of its provisions remain the same, cases involving the Warsaw Convention are considered by the courts in their interpretation of equivalent provisions of the Montreal Convention. (See Badar, 492 F.Supp.3d 54; LAM Wholesale, LLC v United Airlines, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist LEXIS 56599 [ED NY 2019]; Hunter v Deutsche Lufthansa AG, 863 F.Supp.2d 190 [ED NY 2012]; Safa v Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft, Inc., 42 F.Supp.3d 436 [ED NY 2014].) Like the Warsaw Convention, the Montreal Convention "applies to all international carriage of persons, baggage or cargo performed by aircraft for reward".