Case Law Vumbaca v. Terminal One Grp. Ass'n L.P.

Vumbaca v. Terminal One Grp. Ass'n L.P.

Document Cited Authorities (88) Cited in (71) Related (1)

859 F.Supp.2d 343

Vivian VUMBACA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,

v.TERMINAL ONE GROUP ASSOCIATION L.P., Defendant.

No. 11–CV–5535.

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

April 20, 2012.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Thatcher A. Stone, New York, NY, Timothy N. Mathews, Steven A. Schwartz Chimicles & Tikellis, Haverford, PA, for the plaintiff.

Michael J. Holland, Marissa Nicole Lefland, Condon & Forsyth, LLP, New York, NY, for the defendant.

MEMORANDUM, ORDER, & JUDGMENT

JACK B. WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge:

+---------------------------------------------------+
¦I. ¦Introduction and Synopsis                 ¦351 ¦
+---+------------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦                                          ¦    ¦
+---+------------------------------------------+----¦
¦II.¦Facts                                     ¦353 ¦
+---------------------------------------------------+

+------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦A. ¦Parties                                           ¦353   ¦
+----+---+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦B. ¦Terminal's Contractual Rights and Responsibilities¦354   ¦
+----+---+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦C. ¦Terminal's Snow Plan                              ¦354   ¦
+----+---+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦D. ¦Snowstorm of December 2010                        ¦355   ¦
+----+---+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦E. ¦Understaffing                                     ¦355   ¦
+----+---+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦F. ¦Failure to Warn                                   ¦356   ¦
+----+---+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦G. ¦Trapped Passengers                                ¦357   ¦
+----+---+--------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦H. ¦Conditions at Other Facilities                    ¦358   ¦
+------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦1.¦International at JFK                ¦358 ¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦2.¦Domestic at JFK                     ¦358 ¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦3.¦Nearby Airports                     ¦359 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------+

+------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦I.¦Effect of Incident on Plaintiff¦359 ¦
+------------------------------------------+

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦                                                        ¦      ¦
+----+--------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦III.¦Jurisdiction                                            ¦359   ¦
+----+--------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦                                                        ¦      ¦
+----+--------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦IV. ¦Summary Judgment Standard                               ¦360   ¦
+----+--------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦                                                        ¦      ¦
+----+--------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦V.  ¦Choice of Law                                           ¦360   ¦
+----+--------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦                                                        ¦      ¦
+----+--------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦VI. ¦International Law                                       ¦361   ¦
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦A.  ¦Montreal Convention Preempts Claims Against Carriers and   ¦361    ¦
¦    ¦    ¦Their Agents                                               ¦       ¦
+----+----+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦B.  ¦Terminal is an Agent of Air Carriers                       ¦363    ¦
+----+----+-----------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦C.  ¦Articles 17 and 19 Do Not Permit Claims for Emotional and  ¦364    ¦
¦    ¦    ¦Dignitary Harm                                             ¦       ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦1.¦Article 17                          ¦364 ¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦2.¦Article 19                          ¦366 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------+

+------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦D.¦No Recovery Under Convention   ¦368 ¦
+------------------------------------------+

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦                                                        ¦      ¦
+----+--------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦VII.¦New York State Law                                      ¦368   ¦
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

+------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦A.¦Negligence                     ¦368 ¦
+------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦1.¦Standard                            ¦369 ¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦2.¦Terminal Had a Duty to Plaintiff    ¦369 ¦
+---+---+--+------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦3.¦Liability for Emotional Distress    ¦372 ¦
+----------------------------------------------------+

+----------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦B. ¦Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress¦377  ¦
+---+---+--------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦   ¦C. ¦False Imprisonment                          ¦378  ¦
+---+---+--------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦   ¦D. ¦No Recovery Under New York Law              ¦381  ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦     ¦                                                               ¦       ¦
+-----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦VIII.¦Conclusion                                                     ¦381    ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

I. Introduction and Synopsis

Plaintiff alleges that she was kept locked in an aircraft on the ground without food, water, or adequate sanitary facilities for seven hours, suffering mental distress. Hers is a most appealing case. Yet the law can only give her sympathy, not monetarycompensation. An international treaty and New York law bar recovery.

From December 26th to 27th, 2010, during the height of the holiday travel season, the New York metropolitan area was—somewhat unexpectedly—blanketed with over a foot of snow. John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) was closed to air traffic for the worst of the storm. When it reopened, there were continuing problems. Passengers on arriving flights were forced to endure substantial waits after landing before they were able to disembark. Difficulties appear to have been particularly severe at terminals serving international flights. The events sparked a federal investigation and new regulations that forbid foreign air carriers from permitting international flights to remain on the tarmac at a United States airport for more than four hours without allowing passengers to deplane. SeeEnhancing Airline Passenger Protections, 76 Fed.Reg. 23110, 23110 (Apr. 25, 2011) (extending existing regulations, which applied to domestic carriers, to foreign carriers).

Plaintiff Vivian Vumbaca was one of the stranded passengers. Trapped for most of the night aboard an Alitalia flight from Rome that had arrived at Terminal One, she was forced to endure, as she put it, “cramped, uncomfortable, malodorous conditions, without food, water and sanitation” for nearly seven hours. Pl.'s Mem. of Points and Authorities in Opp. to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. 1, Doc. Entry 22, Jan. 31, 2012 (“Pl.'s Summ. J. Mem.”). This resulted, according to her, in “severe emotional distress.” Compl. ¶ 19, Doc. Entry 1, Nov. 10, 2011 (“Compl.”).

She sued Terminal One Group Association, L.P. (TOGA), which operates Terminal One, and seeks to represent similarly situated passengers claiming emotional harms resulting from negligence, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. See generally Compl. She initially pled simple state law causes of action for negligence, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and prima facie tort (presumably under New York law). She now concedes that the prima facie tort claim should be dismissed. Pl.'s Summ. J. Mem. 22.

Defendant moves to dismiss all of plaintiffs claims on the ground that plaintiff failed to state a claim under New York law. Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Doc. Entry 12, Dec. 9, 2011.

At the court's direction, the motion directed at the pleadings was converted to one for summary judgment. Order, Doc. Entry 14, Dec. 20, 2011. Briefing was also ordered on the applicability and effect of the Montreal Convention, an international treaty governing the liability of air carriers and their agents. Order, Doc. Entry 33, Feb. 16, 2011; see The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, May 28, 1999, reprinted inS. Treaty Doc. No. 106–45, 1999 WL 33292734 (2000) (“Montreal Convention”). Following a hearing, ordered were supplemental discovery and briefing on the issue of what, if any, harms plaintiff suffered. See Order, Doc. Entry. 41...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Start a free trial
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2012
Douyon v. N.Y. Med. Health Care, P.C.
"...he or she was “subjected to fear of physical injury as a direct result of the tortious conduct.” See Vumbaca v. Terminal One Group Ass'n L.P., 859 F.Supp.2d 343, 375 (E.D.N.Y.2012) (citing Howard v. Lecher, 42 N.Y.2d 109, 397 N.Y.S.2d 363, 366 N.E.2d 64 (1977)). In the absence of fear of in..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2013
Kruger v. Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd.
"...analysis. Id. at 81 (citing In re Koreag, Controle et Revision S.A., 961 F.2d 341, 350 (2d Cir.1992)); Vumbaca v. Terminal One Group Ass'n L.P., 859 F.Supp.2d 343, 360–61 (E.D.N.Y.2012). An interest analysis suggests two options for the law governing the contract, neither of which is New Yo..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2020
Berlin v. Jetblue Airways Corp.
"...it is the only source of liability for [d]efendant."), aff'd , 578 F. App'x 51 (2d Cir. 2014) ; Vumbaca v. Terminal One Grp. Ass'n L.P. , 859 F. Supp. 2d 343, 362–63 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) ("The remedy the Convention provides against international air carriers and their agents is exclusive."); Mon..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2019
Best Payphones, Inc. v. Dobrin
"...(citation omitted).310 Schoolcraft v. City of N.Y. , 103 F. Supp. 3d 465, 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting Vumbaca v. Terminal One Grp. Ass'n L.P. , 859 F. Supp. 2d 343, 380 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) ).311 See Nagle , 663 F.3d at 111 ; Cioffi , 444 F.3d at 168.312 Williams v. Regus Mgmt. Grp., LLC , 836 ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York – 2021
Doe v. Uber Techs., Inc.
"...other potential tortfeasor—reasonable care under all of the circumstances of the particular case.’ " Vumbaca v. Terminal One Grp. Ass'n L.P. , 859 F. Supp. 2d 343, 370 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting Bethel v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth. , 92 N.Y.2d 348, 681 N.Y.S.2d 201, 703 N.E.2d 1214, 1218 (1998) ). ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
1 books and journal articles
Document | Travel Law
Chapter § 6.01 THE IMPACT OF CLASS ACTIONS
"...second hand smoke in passengers cabins; certification granted).[4] Second Circuit: Vumbaca v. Terminal One Group Association L.P., 859 F. Supp. 2d 343 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) ("Plaintiff alleges that she was locked in an aircraft on the ground without food, water or adequate sanitary facilities for..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
1 firm's commentaries
Document | Mondaq United States – 2014
Eleventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Injury Claim In Airline Bumping Case
"...unfair" to bar the plaintiff's suit when the initial complaint was timely filed. 4 Cf. Vumbaca v. Terminal One Grp. Ass'n L.P., 859 F. Supp. 2d 343, 367 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) with Daniel v. Virgin Atlantic Airways, Ltd., 59 F. Supp. 2d 986 (N.D Cal. 5 The parties agreed that Article 19 does not c..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
1 books and journal articles
Document | Travel Law
Chapter § 6.01 THE IMPACT OF CLASS ACTIONS
"...second hand smoke in passengers cabins; certification granted).[4] Second Circuit: Vumbaca v. Terminal One Group Association L.P., 859 F. Supp. 2d 343 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) ("Plaintiff alleges that she was locked in an aircraft on the ground without food, water or adequate sanitary facilities for..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2012
Douyon v. N.Y. Med. Health Care, P.C.
"...he or she was “subjected to fear of physical injury as a direct result of the tortious conduct.” See Vumbaca v. Terminal One Group Ass'n L.P., 859 F.Supp.2d 343, 375 (E.D.N.Y.2012) (citing Howard v. Lecher, 42 N.Y.2d 109, 397 N.Y.S.2d 363, 366 N.E.2d 64 (1977)). In the absence of fear of in..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2013
Kruger v. Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd.
"...analysis. Id. at 81 (citing In re Koreag, Controle et Revision S.A., 961 F.2d 341, 350 (2d Cir.1992)); Vumbaca v. Terminal One Group Ass'n L.P., 859 F.Supp.2d 343, 360–61 (E.D.N.Y.2012). An interest analysis suggests two options for the law governing the contract, neither of which is New Yo..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2020
Berlin v. Jetblue Airways Corp.
"...it is the only source of liability for [d]efendant."), aff'd , 578 F. App'x 51 (2d Cir. 2014) ; Vumbaca v. Terminal One Grp. Ass'n L.P. , 859 F. Supp. 2d 343, 362–63 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) ("The remedy the Convention provides against international air carriers and their agents is exclusive."); Mon..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2019
Best Payphones, Inc. v. Dobrin
"...(citation omitted).310 Schoolcraft v. City of N.Y. , 103 F. Supp. 3d 465, 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting Vumbaca v. Terminal One Grp. Ass'n L.P. , 859 F. Supp. 2d 343, 380 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) ).311 See Nagle , 663 F.3d at 111 ; Cioffi , 444 F.3d at 168.312 Williams v. Regus Mgmt. Grp., LLC , 836 ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York – 2021
Doe v. Uber Techs., Inc.
"...other potential tortfeasor—reasonable care under all of the circumstances of the particular case.’ " Vumbaca v. Terminal One Grp. Ass'n L.P. , 859 F. Supp. 2d 343, 370 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting Bethel v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth. , 92 N.Y.2d 348, 681 N.Y.S.2d 201, 703 N.E.2d 1214, 1218 (1998) ). ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
1 firm's commentaries
Document | Mondaq United States – 2014
Eleventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Injury Claim In Airline Bumping Case
"...unfair" to bar the plaintiff's suit when the initial complaint was timely filed. 4 Cf. Vumbaca v. Terminal One Grp. Ass'n L.P., 859 F. Supp. 2d 343, 367 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) with Daniel v. Virgin Atlantic Airways, Ltd., 59 F. Supp. 2d 986 (N.D Cal. 5 The parties agreed that Article 19 does not c..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Used by the world's leading companies

Herbert Smith Freehills Logo Princeton University Logo University of Oxford Logo K2 Intelligence LLC Logo Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP Logo Kobre & Kim LLP Logo Wiley Logo ABA Logo Perez Lorca Logo Fisher Phillips Logo
vLex Footer Logo
© 2025 vLex. All rights reserved.