Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Irabor v. Lufthansa Airlines

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

December 5, 2019

BRIGHT U. IRABOR, Plaintiff,
v.
LUFTHANSA AIRLINES, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND

          F. Dennis Saylor, IV United States District Judge.

         This is a lawsuit arising out of an airline's refusal to board a passenger. Plaintiff Bright Irabor has filed suit against defendant Lufthansa Airlines based on a variety of state-law claims.

         In March 2018, Irabor bought a Lufthansa ticket for a round trip from Boston to Lagos, Nigeria, through a travel agent, Liliya Pivovarov. At the time, Irabor's United States permanent resident card had expired. When she sold him the ticket, Pivovarov allegedly told Irabor that he could make the trip using a notice of receipt of a request for extension of a permanent resident card from U.S. immigration authorities.

         In April 2018, because of a strike by Lufthansa personnel, Lufthansa arranged for Irabor to fly to Nigeria on a United Airlines flight instead. He traveled to Nigeria without incident. However, on his return trip to Boston, Lufthansa personnel in Nigeria refused to permit him to board his flight because they said that his travel documents were not acceptable.

         Irabor originally filed a complaint against both Lufthansa and Pivovarov in Essex County Superior Court on March 13, 2019. On September 10, 2019, the Superior Court dismissed Pivovarov from the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.

         On October 8, 2019, Lufthansa removed the case to this Court on the grounds of diversity jurisdiction and federal-question jurisdiction. Irabor has moved to remand the case to the Superior Court, and also seeks his costs and attorney's fees incurred in connection with the motion.

         For the following reasons, the motion will be granted as to the remand to state court, but the request for costs and attorney's fees will be denied.

         I. Background

         A. Factual Background

         The facts are stated as set forth in the complaint and the notice of removal.

         Bright U. Irabor is a resident of North Andover, Massachusetts. (Compl. ¶ 1). Lufthansa Airlines is an airline that services Boston Logan International Airport. (See Compl. ¶ 2; Notice of Removal ¶ 3). Liliya Pivovarov is a travel agent with offices in Lynn, Massachusetts. (Compl. ¶ 3).

         On March 5, 2018, Irabor bought a Lufthansa ticket for a round trip from Boston to Lagos, Nigeria, through Pivovarov. (Compl. ¶ 5). At the time he bought the ticket, his U.S. permanent resident card had expired. He had applied for an extension, however, and had received a notice from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services acknowledging receipt of his application. (See Id. ¶ 6).[1]

         Irabor asked Pivovarov if Lufthansa would allow him to travel between the United States and Nigeria using those documents. (Id. ¶ 5). According to the complaint, Pivovarov said yes. (Id.). Irabor then bought round-trip tickets for a flight leaving on April 9, 2018, and returning on April 22, 2018. (See Id. ¶¶ 7, 8).

         On April 9, 2018, Lufthansa airline personnel were on strike. Lufthansa arranged for Irabor to fly to Nigeria aboard a United Airlines flight. (Id. ¶ 7). He traveled to Nigeria without incident. (Id.).

         On April 22, 2018, Irabor tried to board his return flight at Muritala International Airport in Lagos, Nigeria. (Id. ¶ 8). According to the complaint, Lufthansa personnel refused to permit him to board the flight because they said that his travel documents were not acceptable. (Id.). Unable to board his flight as planned, he booked a hotel for the night and bought a return ticket to the United States from Air France. (Id. ¶¶ 9-10). Because he did not have enough money to pay for the ticket, he was forced to borrow money from a private lender in Lagos. (Id.).

         B. Procedural Background

         Irabor filed this action in Essex County Superior Court on March 13, 2019. The complaint alleges that defendants Lufthansa Airlines and Liliya Pivovarov are liable under Massachusetts law for conversion (Count 1); breach of contract (Count 2); breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count 3); unfair methods of competition and/or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, § 2 (Count 4); negligent misrepresentation (Count 5); and intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress (Count 6).

         On June 13, 2019, Liliya Pivovarov moved to dismiss the complaint against her for insufficiency of service of process and lack of personal jurisdiction. On September 10, 2019, the Superior Court granted the motion based on lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint against her without prejudice. However, the court gave Irabor 30 days to refile the complaint against Pivovarov and to effect service.

         On October 8, 2019, Lufthansa removed to this Court on the grounds of both diversity and federal-question jurisdiction. By that time, Irabor had not refiled the complaint against Pivovarov and had not served her.

         II. Legal Standard

         Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.”

         A case removed from state court must be remanded “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The removing defendant bears the burden of demonstrating the subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal court. Danca v. Private Health Care Sys., Inc., 185 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1999). “The removal statute is strictly construed, and any doubts about the propriety of removal are resolved in favor of remand ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.