NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 6 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VIMALABEN V. PATEL, No. 17-55414 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-04205-FMO-PLA v. SINGAPORE AIRLINES LIMITED, a MEMORANDUM* foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellee, and DOES, 1-100, inclusive, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 3, 2018** Pasadena, California * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Before: D.W. NELSON and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and PRATT,*** District Judge. Vimalaben Patel appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Singapore Airlines Ltd. (“SIA”), on her state-law claim alleging negligence in her treatment in connection with a flight to India. Patel, an elderly woman, purchased round-trip airfare from SIA to travel from the United States to India. Prior to the departure, Patel lost her U.S. passport, so she brought her Indian passport, which bore a notation that the passport had been cancelled, to the airport instead. Patel presented her cancelled Indian passport at SIA’s check-in counter, and SIA allowed her to board the flight. Upon Patel’s arrival in India, India’s Bureau of Immigration denied Patel entry into the country because of her invalid passport. Patel was required to immediately board another long flight back to the United States. Patel alleged that, as a result of this incident, she suffered severe back pain, emotional trauma, and headaches. We review de novo a district court’s determination of subject-matter jurisdiction and grant of summary judgment. Gingery v. City of Glendale, 831 F.3d 1222, 1226 (9th Cir. 2016); Ah Quin v. Cty. of Kauai Dep’t of Transp., 733 F.3d 267, 270 (9th Cir. 2013). We also review a district court’s interpretation of a *** The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation. 2 treaty de novo. Hosaka v. United Airlines, Inc., 305 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of SIA. We decline to address the parties’ arguments with respect to whether the Montreal Convention completely preempts state-law claims because we are satisfied the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Complete diversity of citizenship exists because Patel is a citizen of California and SIA is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Singapore with its principal place of business in Singapore. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Further, in her state-court complaint, Patel sought damages in the amount of one million dollars, which exceeds the amount-in-controversy requirement. See id. We thus proceed to the question of whether Patel’s state-law claim for negligence “satisf[ies] the conditions for liability under the Convention.” El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd. v. Tseng, 525 U.S. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals