Mata v. Avianca, Inc.
Unreported (District Court Order) (2023)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The two-year limitation period for bringing an action under the Montreal Convention for international air carrier liability is a strict condition precedent to suit and is not subject to tolling, even by an automatic bankruptcy stay, thereby preempting state law limitations periods.
Facts:
- On August 27 or 28, 2019, Roberto Mata was a passenger on Avianca Flight 670 from El Salvador to John F. Kennedy Airport in New York.
- During the overnight flight, an Avianca employee struck Roberto Mata in the left knee with a metal serving cart.
- Roberto Mata sustained severe injuries, including unspecified damage to his nervous system, which required medical treatment and prevented him from working.
- Avianca, Inc. entered bankruptcy proceedings.
Procedural Posture:
- Roberto Mata was injured on an Avianca flight on August 27 or 28, 2019.
- On July 20, 2020, Roberto Mata filed a previous complaint with similar allegations against Avianca, Inc. (first action).
- Roberto Mata subsequently learned that Avianca, Inc. was in bankruptcy proceedings and subject to an automatic bankruptcy stay.
- In January 2022, Roberto Mata learned that Avianca, Inc. had emerged from bankruptcy.
- On January 31, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation of discontinuance for the first action.
- On February 2, 2022, Roberto Mata filed the current action in the New York Supreme Court, New York County.
- On February 22, 2022, Avianca, Inc. filed a Notice of Removal, moving the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- Avianca, Inc. moved to dismiss the Complaint in the U.S. District Court pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), asserting that Mata’s claim was time-barred under the Montreal Convention.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the two-year limitations period under Article 35 of the Montreal Convention constitute a strict condition precedent to suit that is not subject to tolling, such as by an automatic bankruptcy stay under federal bankruptcy law?
Opinions:
Majority - Castel, U.S.D.J.
Yes, the two-year limitations period under the Montreal Convention is a strict condition precedent to suit and is not subject to tolling, including by an automatic bankruptcy stay. The court determined that Roberto Mata’s claim arose under the Montreal Convention, a multilateral treaty governing international air carriage, because his allegations described an 'accident' (a metal serving cart striking his knee) during an international flight. Article 35, Section 1 of the Convention explicitly states that the 'right to damages shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within a period of two years, reckoned from the date of arrival.' Citing Second Circuit precedent, particularly Fishman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (interpreting the substantively identical Warsaw Convention), the court held that this two-year period is a condition precedent to bringing a claim, not merely a statute of limitations. As a condition precedent, it is not subject to equitable tolling principles. The court further emphasized that applying local tolling principles would undermine the Convention’s goal of uniform enforcement among signatory states. Since Mata's flight arrived on or about August 28, 2019, his claim became time-barred on August 28, 2021, rendering his subsequent filing on February 2, 2022, untimely.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strict interpretation of the Montreal Convention's two-year limitation period, classifying it as a non-negotiable condition precedent rather than a standard statute of limitations. It solidifies the Convention's preemptive force over state law and local tolling doctrines, ensuring uniformity in international air carrier liability. The decision underscores that even significant events like an automatic bankruptcy stay cannot extend this period, compelling plaintiffs to adhere strictly to the Convention’s timeline regardless of extenuating circumstances. This maintains predictability for airlines operating internationally but places a stringent burden on claimants.
