This court has similarly expressed that “state personal injury claims of plaintiffs based on airline ‘safety’ or lack thereof are not expressly preempted by [the ADA]” because the “alleged damages claims are not ‘related to’ the routes, rates, and services provided by [the air carrier].” Rodriguez v. American Airlines, Inc., 886 F.Supp. 967, 971 (D.P.R.1995) (emphasis in original).

None of the cases cited by defendant in his dismissal motion (docket entry 26) involve state laws with an express reference to or direct effect on carriers' prices, routes, or services, such as the prohibition against deliveries and regulation of the manner of service at issue here. Instead, defendant relies on cases involving generally applicable state laws that do not expressly refer to, and have only remote, indirect effects on price, route or service (or on ERISA plans), such as prevailing wage laws ( Cal. Labor Standards v. Dillingham Const., 519 U.S. 316, 117 S.Ct. 832, 136 L.Ed.2d 791 (1997)), anti-discrimination laws ( Abdu-Brisson v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 128 F.3d 77, 82, 84-85 (2d Cir. 1997)), and personal injury claims ( Rodríguez v. American Airlines, Inc., 886 F. Supp. 967, 971 (P.R. 1995)). Post- Morales cases applying a more narrow interpretation of the "relates to" language in the ERISA preemption provision do not affect the scope of FAAAA preemption, because Congress expressly adopted Morales as the scope of FAAAA preemption.

None of the cases cited by defendant in his dismissal motion (docket entry 26) involve state laws with an express reference to or direct effect on carriers' prices, routes, or services, such as the prohibition against deliveries and regulation of the manner of service at issue here. Instead, defendant relies on cases involving generally applicable state laws that do not expressly refer to, and have only remote, indirect effects on price, route or service (or on ERISA plans), such as prevailing wage laws (Cal. Labor Standards v. Dillingham Const., 519 U.S. 316 (1997)), antidiscrimination laws (Abdu-Brisson v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 128 F.3d 77, 82, 84-85 (2d Cir. 1997)), and personal injury claims (Rodríguez v. American Airlines, Inc., 886 F. Supp. 967, 971 (D. Puerto Rico 1995)). Post-Morales cases applying a more narrow interpretation of the "relates to" language in the ERISA preemption provision do not affect the scope of FAAAA preemption, because Congress expressly adopted Morales as the scope of FAAAA preemption.

Id. at 182. Finally, in Rodriguez v. American Airlines, Inc., 886 F. Supp. 967 (D.P.R. 1995), the district court held only that state personal injury claims based on safety or a lack thereof are not related to "services" for purposes of the ADA. Id. at 971.

Although American Airlines' consent to be sued in a related matter does not give rise to broad-reaching personal jurisdiction over American Airlines, this Court is satisfied that American Airlines' intentional and systematic contact in Puerto Rico demonstrate that defendant is amenable to suit in Puerto Rico. See Rodriguez v. American Airlines, Inc., 886 F. Supp. 967 (D.P.R. 1995); Garcia v. American Airlines, 816 F. Supp. 72 (D.P.R. 1993). Thus, the remaining inquiry is whether this action accrued in New York or Puerto Rico.

Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Law § 187 (1988). In Puerto Rico as to choice of forum law, courts do not hesitate to rely upon the Restatement of the Conflicts of Law. See A.M. Capen's Co. v. American Trading Prod. Corp., 74 F.3d 317 (1st Cir. 1996); Viuda de Fornaris v. American Surety Co. of N Y, 93 D.P.R. 29 (1966); Bonn v. Puerto Rico Int'l Airlines, Inc., 518 F.2d 89 (1st Cir. 1975); Rodriguez v. American Airlines, Inc., 886 F. Supp. 967 (D.P.R. 1993). The Puerto Rico Supreme Court has specifically stated that substantial contacts are necessary to enforce choice of law clauses.

Both parties advise the Court of a well briefed matter: that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as forum state has adopted the dominant contact rules of choice of law incorporating the dominant contacts criteria contained in the Restatement 2d of Conflict of Law (1971), particularly sections 145, 175 and 178. Fornaris v. American Surety Co., supra; Bonn, supra. Naturally, each party seeks a different application of the principles contained therein; plaintiffs sustain that the place of the conduct and injury is paramount and codefendants contend otherwise. The First Circuit Court of Appeals' not recently amended interpretation of the Puerto Rican choice of law rules made in the case of Bonn v. PRINAIR, supra, guides our decision in this case as in the passenger case of Rodriguez, et al. v. American Airlines, Inc., et al., 886 F. Supp. 967 (D.Puerto Rico 1995). We proceed, once more, to review the dominant contacts that arise from the facts of the case.