Curley v. AMR Corp.

• Decision Date: 22 July 1998
• Docket Number: 97-7020,Nos. 96-9690,s. 96-9690
• Citation: 1998 WL 458509,153 F.3d 5
• Parties: Dennis CURLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, v. AMR CORPORATION; F.A. Kummire, Capt.; Humberto Duenas, Defendants, American Airlines, Inc., Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Page 5

153 F.3d 5

Dennis CURLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, v. AMR CORPORATION; F.A. Kummire, Capt.; Humberto Duenas, Defendants, American Airlines, Inc., Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant.

Nos. 96-9690, 97-7020.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued Dec. 8, 1997.

Decided July 22, 1998.

Martin J. Birn, New York City, for Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee.

Jeffrey J. Ellis, Quirk and Bakalor, P.C., New York City (Donna H. Bakalor, of counsel), for Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant.

Before MINER, PARKER and WOOD, ^* Circuit Judges.

MINER, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant-cross-appellee Dennis Curley appeals from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Knapp, J.) insofar as it incorporates an order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant-appellee-cross-appellant Applying Mexican law, we affirm the summary judgment entered in favor of American and dismiss the cross-appeal.

American Airlines, Inc. ("American"). In granting summary judgment, the district court applied New York law to dismiss claims of negligence and false imprisonment asserted by Curley against American. American cross-appeals from the same judgment insofar as it incorporates a putative order denying its motion for summary judgment to dismiss Curley's claims on the basis of Mexican law.

BACKGROUND

The material facts in this case are undisputed. On December 25, 1990, Dennis Curley and a companion were passengers on two connecting American Airlines flights. The first was from New York City to Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas, and the second from Dallas-Fort Worth to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. During the descent of the aircraft during the latter flight, several of American's flight attendants reported to the flight's captain, F.A. Kummire, that an odor of marijuana smoke was emanating from a lavatory that Curley had just vacated. The attendants also reported that they had found what appeared to be marijuana residue in the lavatory trash, and ashes or seeds in the lavatory sink. Despite their observations, an operable smoke detector in the lavatory was not activated during the flight. The attendants did not question or search Curley.

After learning of the flight attendants' observations and suspicions, the captain had the crew lock the lavatory for the duration of the flight. The captain did not inspect the lavatory or order that Curley be investigated or questioned and did not inquire as to whether Curley had actually been seen smoking marijuana. The captain kept the door locked until American was later notified by the Mexican authorities that they did not wish to inspect the lavatory.

After landing in Puerto Vallarta, the captain identified Curley for American's ground crew as a person suspected of having smoked marijuana in the lavatory during the flight. The ground crew then informed Mexican authorities of this suspicion. While awaiting immigration processing, Curley was approached by an employee of American named Humberto Duenas, who asked Curley how long he planned to be in Mexico. After receiving this information, Duenas left the immigration area, returning shortly thereafter with a Mexican official. At that point, Duenas requested that Curley show him his plane ticket. Curley handed Duenas all of his travel documents, including his passport. Duenas and the Mexican official then left the area with Curley's travel documents. When they returned, Duenas touched Curley's elbow and stated, "[C]ome with me please," indicating to Curley that he should accompany them to another location. Curley testified that, despite his failure to raise an objection at that time, he did not feel that he was going with Duenas and the Mexican official voluntarily.

Duenas and the official walked Curley to an office. Duenas then told Curley to enter a smaller interior office, where two other Mexican officials were waiting. Neither Duenas nor any other American employees entered the inner office. Once inside, Curley was questioned about his alleged use of marijuana, and his bags were searched. Curley testified that, based on gestures made by the officials, he knew that he was required to undress. Curley then undressed and underwent a strip search. He alleges that the officials who conducted the search laughed at him, threatened him with incarceration, pointed a loaded rifle at his genitals and touched his buttocks with the rifle. Curley asserts that they also repeatedly asked him where he was hiding the marijuana and stated that the captain had informed them that he had been smoking marijuana on the flight. Curley denied using or possessing marijuana. While he was being interrogated and examined, the officials continued unpacking his luggage in search of marijuana.

Although no evidence of marijuana was found in his luggage or on his person, a Mexican doctor was brought into the inner office to examine Curley to determine whether he had recently used marijuana. The doctor smelled Curley's breath and examined his eyes and the inside of his mouth. The On June 28, 1991, Curley filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging, inter alia, that he was harmed as a result of the captain's failure to fully investigate, or have the crew investigate, his suspected marijuana use and possession prior to the report of that suspicion to the Mexican authorities. Curley contends that the captain had a duty to investigate or order an investigation, presumably because he would not have been detained by Mexican officials when the investigation revealed that he did not use or possess marijuana. Consequently, Curley claims that American's failure to investigate constitutes actionable negligence and gross negligence under New York law.

                doctor also had Curley walk in a straight line and then touch his nose with his hands.  The doctor concluded that Curley "exhibited alcohol intoxication of the 1st degree without exhibiting Cannabis intoxication."   Curley admits to having had one beer on the flight.  Although the physical exam by the doctor was requested by a Mexican official, Duenas was required to pay the doctor's bill.  After the medical examination was completed, Curley repacked his luggage.  He and his companion were cleared through immigration without incident at the conclusion of the investigation.  According to Duenas' report, proper security procedures were followed
                

Curley also alleges that American, primarily through the actions of Duenas, caused Curley to be falsely imprisoned by Mexican officials in violation of New York law. Curley claims that he was humiliated by this ordeal and has suffered anxiety, anger, deterioration of his relationship with his lover and flashbacks. As a result of the physical and emotional harm claimed to have been caused by American's alleged wrongdoing, Curley seeks both compensatory and punitive damages from American in the amount of $1,000,000.

American first moved for summary judgment by notice of motion dated March 26, 1993. The relief sought was stated in the notice of motion in the following language: "[T]he defendant ... will move for summary judgment on the ground that the Warsaw Convention governs plaintiff's action and precludes recovery for the type of injury which he alleges. Alternatively, defendant moves for the application of Mexican law."

By opinion and order dated March 7, 1994, the district court denied American's motion for summary judgment, finding that Curley's claim was not based on an "accident" of the type contemplated by the Warsaw Convention. See Curley v. American Airlines, Inc., 846 F.Supp. 280, 283 (S.D.N.Y.1994). The district court also observed that Curley's state law claim was not preempted by the Federal Aviation Act, inasmuch as the preemptive provisions of the Act related only to rates, routes and services. Id. at 284. As to the alternative relief sought in the motion, the district court found the parties' submissions inadequate: "[N]either party has supplied us with any information as to what relevant Mexican law might provide." Id. at 285. Accordingly, the district court "left to another day" the "final resolution of the choice of law question." Id. at 285.

Following briefing and oral argument on Mexican law by the parties, the district court issued a Memorandum and Order dated May 11, 1995 denying the alternative motion for the application of Mexican law. See Curley v. American Airlines, Inc., No. 91 Civ. 2724, 1995 WL 276138 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 1995). The district court stated: "We find nowhere in defendant's recitation of Mexican law an explanation of how these laws are inconsistent with similar provisions of New York law. Indeed, plaintiff suggests--and we agree--that they are entirely consistent with New York law." Id. 1995 WL 276138 at * 1. The district court further stated that, even if it were wrong in its conclusion, "we would still be inclined to deny defendant's motion on the ground that defendant has not presented us with a sufficiently comprehensive statement of Mexican law to permit us to act upon it with confidence." Id. 1995 WL 276138 at * 2. Accordingly, the district court determined that "New York law will be applied to all issues of liability and damages." Id.

American's second motion for summary judgment was made on the basis of New York law. Oral argument on the motion was heard on October 18, 1996, and the district court issued an Memorandum and Order

granting summary judgment on November 14, 1996. See Curley v.. American Airlines, Inc., No. 91 Civ. 2724, 1996 WL 668857 (S.D.N.Y. November 19, 1996). Applying New York law in rejecting plaintiff's claim of false imprisonment, the district court found that "[t]here [was] nothing in Duenas' conduct to suggest that he had any control over the conduct and decisions of the Mexican authorities, or that he in any way suggested to them what should be done." Id. 1996 WL 668857 at * 2. The district...