United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit

August Term 2022

Argued: November 18, 2022 Decided: July 19, 2023

No. 21-2867

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA.,

Plaintiff,

v.

UPS SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Defendant-Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

EVA AIRWAYS CORPORATION,

Third-Party Defendant-Appellee,

DOES 1–10,

Third-Party Defendants. ∗

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York No. 20-cv-2818, Edgardo Ramos, Judge.

∗ The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption accordingly. Before: JACOBS, LOHIER, and NATHAN, Circuit Judges.

Appellant UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. was sued in the Southern District of New York and filed a third-party complaint against Appellee EVA Airways Corporation, seeking indemnification and contribution. The district court granted EVA’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. UPS now appeals, arguing that EVA was subject to specific personal jurisdiction based on both New York’s long-arm statute and the Montreal Convention. We hold that UPS has failed to allege the in-state injury required for specific jurisdiction in New York, that the Montreal Convention does not confer personal jurisdiction, and that the record does not establish that EVA consented to personal jurisdiction in light of the Convention or its contract with UPS. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

Judge Lohier concurs in a separate opinion. ________

MARK P. ESTRELLA, Countryman & McDaniel, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Appellant. CHRISTOPHER CARLSEN, Clyde & Co. US LLP, New York, NY, for Appellee. ________

NATHAN, Circuit Judge:

The Montreal Convention, a multilateral treaty which entered into force in 2003, governs claims arising out of the international transportation of persons, baggage, and cargo by air. 1 The treaty includes jurisdictional articles providing where such claims can be brought. This appeal presents a question of first

1Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, May 28, 1999, T.I.A.S. No. 13,038.

2 impression: whether the Montreal Convention confers personal jurisdiction. In particular, we must determine whether by enabling actions arising under the treaty to be brought in the courts of certain countries, the Montreal Convention provides those courts with personal jurisdiction over the parties. Consistent with our decisions interpreting the Montreal Convention’s predecessor, we conclude that it does not. The Montreal Convention’s jurisdictional provisions place a limit on when courts of the United States, as opposed to courts of other signatory nations, may exercise jurisdiction over a claim arising under the treaty. Under U.S. law, this is referred to as treaty jurisdiction, which is a form of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Montreal Convention does not, however, alter our domestic personal jurisdiction requirements, which must be independently established.

B