Defrank v. JetBlue Airways Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------- x
SUMMARY ORDER
26-CV-77 (DLI)(MMH)
RAMONA DEFRANK,
Plaintiff,
-against-
JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORP.,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
------------------------------------------------------------------- x
DORA L. IRIZARRY, United States District Judge:
On December 6, 2025, Ramona Defrank (“Plaintiff”) filed a verified complaint
(“Complaint”) in New York State Supreme Court, Queens County (“state court”) against
JetBlue Airways Corp. (“Defendant”) alleging negligence claims arising from injuries
Plaintiff sustained on an international flight operated by Defendant. 	See, Notice of
Removal (“Notice”), Dkt. Entry No. 1 at 7. On January 6, 2026, Defendant timely removed
the action to this Court, invoking the Court’s federal question subject matter jurisdiction.
See, Notice, Dkt. Entry No. 1, ¶¶ 3, 7 (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(a)).
On January 7, 2026, Plaintiff moved to remand this action to state court on several
grounds. See generally, Remand Mot., Dkt. Entry No. 7. As relevant here, Plaintiff asserts
that removal was improper because: (1) the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules
for International Carriage by Air, May 28, 1999, reprinted in S. Treaty Doc. 106-45 (2000)
(hereinafter, the “Montreal Convention”) cannot provide a basis for removal pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1331; and (2) JetBlue’s Notice of Removal incorrectly states that the
Complaint was filed in Kings County, instead of Queens County. Defendant opposes on
the grounds that the Complaint states a federal cause of action on its face through reference
to the Montreal Convention, completely preempting Plaintiff’s state law negligence claims.
Case 1:26-cv-00077-DLI-MMH Document 13 Filed 03/09/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
See, Opp. Mot., Dkt. Entry No. 12. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is
denied as the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
DISCUSSION
I. 	Legal Standard
“The federal removal statute permits, in relevant part, the removal of a civil action
of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 	Springer v.
Parker Jewish Inst. for Healthcare & Rehabilitation, 2023 WL 2330047, at *2 (E.D.N.Y.
Mar. 2, 2023) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Removal
jurisdiction must be strictly construed, and the burden of proof lies with the party asserting
jurisdiction. 	See, United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 919, AFL-CIO
v. CenterMark Props. Meriden Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298, 301 (2d Cir. 1994).
A claim arises under federal law if “a federal question is presented on the face of
the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” 	Rivet v. Regions Bank, 522 U.S. 470, 475
(1998). Thus, a case cannot be removed to federal court solely “on the basis of a federal
defense, including the defense of pre-emption, even if the defense is anticipated in the
plaintiff’s complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987). However,
“[a] statute may have such extraordinary preemptive force that it converts an ordinary state
common-law complaint into one stating a federal claim for purposes of the well-pleaded
complaint 	rule.” 	Mateo 	v. 	JetBlue 	Airways 	Corp., 	847 	F. 	Supp.2d 	383, 	386
(E.D.N.Y. 2012) (citing Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 65 (1987))
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Case 1:26-cv-00077-DLI-MMH Document 13 Filed 03/09/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
II. 	Analysis
Plaintiff’s primary argument is that the Montreal Convention, while it “may limit
liability, may govern damages, and may be raised as a defense,” does not completely
preempt state common law negligence claims and thus does not provide a basis for
removal. 	See, Remand Mot., Dkt. Entry No. 7, ¶¶ 18-24. 	The argument is meritless.
Several courts in this circuit have held that personal injury claims arising from an
international flight are completely preempted by the Montreal Convention. See, Canela v.
JetBlue Airways Corp., 2023 WL 1801996, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2023) (holding that
injuries sustained while boarding a flight from New York to the Dominican Republic were
completely preempted by the Montreal Convention). See also, Mateo, 847 F. Supp.2d at
387 (collecting cases).
It is undisputed that Plaintiff’s claims arise pursuant to the Montreal Convention,
as Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s negligence caused her to be burned by a hot beverage
during an international flight from New York to the Dominican Republic. 	See, Notice,
Dkt. Entry No. 1, ¶ 23. 	See also, Canela, 2023 WL 1801996, at *2. 	Indeed, Plaintiff
explicitly alleges in the Complaint that her “transportation and causes of action may be
subject to and arise under” the Montreal Convention. See, Remand Mot., Dkt. Entry No.
7, ¶¶ 14, 17. 1 	Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state common law claims for negligence are
completely preempted by the Montreal Convention and the Court properly maintains
subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
1 Plaintiff also cites to the “Warsaw Convention” in the Complaint. However, because the Montreal
Convention “unifies and replaces the system of liability that derives from the Warsaw Convention,” the Court
need only address whether subject matter jurisdiction is appropriate under the Montreal Convention. See,
Ehrlich v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 360 F.3d 366, 372 (2d Cir. 2004).
Case 1:26-cv-00077-DLI-MMH Document 13 Filed 03/09/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Plaintiff’s 	remaining 	argument 	that 	remand 	is 	proper 	because 	Defendant
erroneously stated that the underlying Complaint was filed in Kings County instead of
Queens County is unavailing, as both counties are within this district’s jurisdiction.
See, Remand Mot., Dkt. Entry No. 7, ¶¶ 15-17. Plaintiff cites no authority to support the
assertion that such a minor error in a Notice of Removal warrants remand where the Court
has subject matter jurisdiction over the pending action. 	Accordingly, Defendant has
sustained its burden in demonstrating that Plaintiff’s claims arise pursuant to federal law,
and the motion to remand is denied.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion to remand is denied.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
March 9, 2026
______________/s/______________
DORA L. IRIZARRY
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00077-DLI-MMH Document 13 Filed 03/09/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>