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.

Bernfeld v. U.S. Airways, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

May 21, 2015

ALEKSEY BERNFELD, on his behalf and on behalf of minor child, SIMONA BERNFELD, and MARIA BERNFELD, Plaintiffs,
v.
U.S. AIRWAYS INC., Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SHARON JOHNSON COLEMAN, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Aleksey Bernfeld, Simona Bernfeld, and Maria Bernfeld ("plaintiffs") filed a six-count class action amended complaint against defendant U.S. Airways Inc. ("U.S. Airways"), alleging violations of the Montreal Convention and breach of contract for failure to compensate plaintiffs' alleged damages caused by delay and cancellation of a U.S. Airways flight from Philadelphia to Chicago. U.S. Airways filed an answer and affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs move to strike U.S. Airways' affirmative defenses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.

Background

According to the complaint, plaintiffs were traveling from Tel Aviv, Israel to Chicago, connecting through Philadelphia. Their flight from Philadelphia to Chicago was delayed for several hours for aircraft maintenance. Plaintiffs ultimately arrived in Chicago ten hours later than scheduled. They subsequently submitted a claim and demand for compensation to U.S. Airways which was responded to and denied by its insurer. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed this lawsuit. U.S. Airways filed an answer, including seventeen affirmative defenses. (Dkt. 23.) The affirmative defenses are as follows:

1. "Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted."
2. "Any and all damages sustained by the Plaintiff were the result of an intervening and/or superseding causes or a new or unanticipated events which were a proximate and/or producing cause and or the sole proximate cause of the Plaintiffs' alleged damages and, therefore, no act or omission on the part of this answering defendant was the proximate cause of the alleged damages."
3. "The alleged delay in air travel was unexpected unavoidable."
4. "This defendant took all reasonable measures to prevent the alleged delay."
5. "The plaintiffs may have failed to mitigate their damages."
6. "That the plaintiffs' damages, if any, were sustained as a result of the carelessness, negligence, and/or intentional acts of themselves and/or third parties not presently parties to this action who this answering defendant had no control."
7. "The plaintiffs' damages, if any, lack a causal relationship with any action or inaction of this defendant."
8. "Plaintiffs' damages, if any, were the result of unrelated, pre-existing, or subsequent conditions unrelated to defendant's conduct."
9. "Any and all state or federal tort claims are preempted by the Montreal Convention."
10. "To the extent that any of Plaintiffs' claims may not fall under the purview of the Montreal Convention, they may be preempted ...

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.