You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Compania Mexicana De Aviacion, S.A., a Corporation Doing Business as Mexicana Airlines v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, and Adela Espinosa De Penasco, Carlos Penasco Garcia, Patricia Guadarrama Ortiz, Rodolfo Guadarrama Ortiz, Raul Guadaramma Ortiz, Ana Maria Esperanza Cuellar Marovilla, Federico Perez Munoz Lido, Amelia Neyra Perez, Pablo Eduardo Zuniga Escobar, Maria De Los Angeles Escobar Rodriguez, Rafael Mujica Bustos, Maria Luisa Susana Alarcon Mujica, Miguelangel Avila Rosales, Hector Avila Rosales, Rene Avila Rosales, Salvador Hernandez Amezcua, Maria Del Socorro Garcia Vizcaino, Individually and as Guardian Ad Litem of Minors, Fernando Contreras Garcia and Liliana Contreras Garcia, Maria Teresa Alvarado Melgoza, Juan Rodriguez Guillen, Martha Rodriguez Guillen, Celia Rodriguez Guillen, Sylvia Rosaura Rodriguez Guillen, Rafael Palacios Ibarra, Enrique Rodriguez Guillen, Individually and as Guardian Ad Litem of Minors, Cristobal Rodriguez Guillen and Pedro Rodrigu

Citations: 859 F.2d 1354; 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 14089Docket: 88-7015

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; October 17, 1988; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. (Mexicana Airlines) appealing a denial by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California of its motion to dismiss a lawsuit concerning the crash of Mexicana flight 940. The suit was brought on behalf of 69 Mexican decedents who purchased tickets in Mexico for domestic travel. Mexicana argued for dismissal based on foreign sovereign immunity and forum non conveniens, which the District Court denied. Mexicana petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a writ of mandamus, which was treated as a notice of appeal. The Ninth Circuit found that Mexicana, as a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), was immune from U.S. jurisdiction as no statutory exceptions applied. The court reversed the District Court's denial and remanded the case for dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction. The court addressed the applicability of the Warsaw Convention, affirming that jurisdiction was limited to Mexico. The ruling emphasized that Mexicana's commercial activities in the U.S. did not establish a significant nexus to the claims, and the case was submitted without oral argument. The outcome resulted in the dismissal of the action against Mexicana, underscoring the protections afforded to foreign states under the FSIA.

Legal Issues Addressed

Application of the Warsaw Convention

Application: The Warsaw Convention was cited to affirm that jurisdiction is limited to the carrier's domicile, which is Mexico, as the tickets were for domestic travel.

Reasoning: The Warsaw Convention also supports this conclusion, as it defines international transport based on the contract between parties. The tickets involved were for domestic travel, and jurisdiction is limited to the carrier's domicile or principal place of business, which is Mexico.

Foreign Sovereign Immunity under FSIA

Application: The court determined that Mexicana Airlines, as a foreign state under FSIA, is immune from lawsuits in the U.S. unless specific statutory exceptions apply.

Reasoning: Mexicana is recognized as a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), leading to a lack of jurisdiction for the District Court due to the inapplicability of statutory exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity.

Interlocutory Appeal under Collateral Order Doctrine

Application: The denial of Mexicana's motion to dismiss based on foreign sovereign immunity is treated as an appealable collateral order.

Reasoning: The court concluded that the denial of a motion to dismiss based on foreign sovereign immunity constitutes a collateral order that is immediately appealable.

Jurisdiction over Commercial Activities under FSIA

Application: The court found no significant nexus between Mexicana's commercial activities in the U.S. and the cause of action, thus lacking jurisdiction.

Reasoning: Jurisdiction is lacking for claims based on actions in the United States related to foreign commercial activities, as Mexicana did not conduct any significant act within the U.S. relevant to the case.

Waiver of Sovereign Immunity

Application: Mexicana's waiver of sovereign immunity was deemed limited to cases with substantial U.S. contact, which was not present in this instance.

Reasoning: Plaintiffs contend that Mexicana has waived its sovereign immunity due to a Foreign Air Carrier permit issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation, which purportedly allows lawsuits in U.S. courts for claims arising from operations under this permit.