Braik

1

2

3

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6 SAN JOSE DIVISION

7

8 VICTORIA BRAIK, Case No. 25-cv-08269-VKD

9 Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

10 v. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

11 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Re: Dkt. No. 9

Defendant.

12

13

14 On September 29, 2025, plaintiff Victoria Braik, who is representing herself, filed a

15 complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. Nos. 1, 2. On October 15,

16 2025, the Court issued an order granting Ms. Braik’s IFP application and screening the complaint

17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Dkt. No. 7. The Court found that the complaint failed to state a

18 claim over which the Court has subject matter jurisdiction and was subject to dismissal on that

19 basis. Id. The Court afforded Ms. Braik an opportunity to file an amended complaint by

20 November 12, 2025. Id. On October 24, 2025, Ms. Braik filed a motion for reconsideration of the

21 Court’s order. Dkt. No. 9. This motion is deemed suitable for determination without oral

22 argument. Civil L.R. 7-1(b).

23 Civil Local Rule 7-9 governs motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders prior to

24 “the entry of a judgment adjudicating all of the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the

25 parties in a case.”1 Civil L.R. 7-9(a). Under that rule, a party may seek leave to file a motion for

26

27

1 In her motion, Ms. Braik cites Rules 59 and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These

1 reconsideration any time before judgment. Id. “No party may notice a motion for reconsideration

2 without first obtaining leave of Court to file the motion.” Id. Ms. Braik did not seek leave of the

3 Court to file her motion. Nevertheless, in view of Ms. Braik’s pro se status, the Court will

4 consider her motion on the merits.

5 A motion for reconsideration may be made on three grounds: (1) a material difference in

6 fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court, which, in the exercise of reasonable

7 diligence, the moving party did not know at the time of the order for which reconsideration is

8 sought; (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law; or (3) a manifest failure by the

9 Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments. Civil L.R. 7-9(b).

10 Ms. Braik appears to rely on the third ground. She contends that the Court erred in finding

11 that the complaint failed to state a claim over which the Court has subject matter jurisdiction

12 because “Montreal convention is Federal subject matter jurisdiction.” Dkt. No. 9 at 2.

13 Specifically, Ms. Braik argues that the Court “wrongly referred [to]” and “distort[ed] the facts

14 [of]” cases and that the Court “manipulate[d] facts before trial.” Id. at 3-4.

15 With respect to the Court’s consideration of material facts, Ms. Braik’s arguments are not

16 entirely clear. She appears to acknowledge that, as pled in her complaint, she purchased two

17 tickets: one from Warsaw, Poland to Los Angeles, California on a United Airlines/Lufthansa

18 Airlines flight, and a second from Los Angeles, California to San Jose, California on a Southwest

19 Airlines flight. Dkt. No. 9 at 2. The Court did not fail to consider these facts in its October 15,

20 2025 screening order. See Dkt. No. 7 at 3. To the extent Ms. Braik relies on other facts that were

21 not pled in her complaint, the Court could not have considered those facts. If she wishes, Ms.

22 Braik may include additional factual allegations in the amended complaint that the Court has given

23 her an opportunity to file. See id. at 5-6.

24 With respect to the Court’s consideration of dispositive legal arguments, Ms. Braik cites

25 several cases that she contends support her argument that the original complaint establishes a basis

26 for the Court to exercise federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Dkt. No. 9 at 4. These cases are

27 distinguishable, as none of them involve the circumstances presented here—namely, a ticket for

1 from a different airline. See Garcia v. Aerovias de Mexico, S.A., 896 F. Supp. 1216, 1218 (S.D.

2 Fla. 1995) (holding that the Warsaw Convention preempted state law claims where plaintiff

3 alleged he was assaulted on an international flight from Miami, Florida to Cancun, Mexico); Ambe

4 v. Air France, S.A., No. 2:17-cv-08719 DDP-EX, 2018 WL 6435875, at *2-4 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 7,

5 2018) (holding that the Montreal Convention preempted state law claims where plaintiff’s

6 husband died during an international flight from Los Angeles, California to Paris, France); Lee v.

7 AMR Corp., No. 15-cv-2666, 2015 WL 3797330, at *4 (E.D. Pa. June 18, 2015) (finding that

8 plaintiff’s claims fell within the scope of the Montreal Convention where plaintiff had purchased a

9 ticket for an international flight from Miami, Florida to Ladyville, Belize, even though she was not

10 permitted to board that flight). Other cases cited by Ms. Braik support the Court’s conclusion that

11 the complaint does not plausibly allege a factual basis for application of the Montreal Convention.

12 See Biscone v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 681 F. Supp. 2d 383, 387 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (finding that

13 plaintiff, who experienced delay of a domestic flight, lacked standing for a claim under the

14 Montreal Convention because she was not “an international traveler”); Quinn v. Guerrero, 863

15 F.3d 353, 358-59 (5th Cir. 2017) (in a case unrelated to the Montreal Convention, observing that

16 “[t]he plaintiff’s federal question must appear on the face of his well-pleaded complaint”).

17 Finally, Ms. Braik contends that the Court’s screening order misrepresented the decision in

18 Best v. BWIA W. Indies Airways Ltd., 581 F. Supp. 2d 359 (E.D.N.Y. 2008). See Dkt. No. 9 at 3.

19 It is unclear why she believes this is the case. The screening order accurately described the

20 relevant holding in a “see also” cite to Best as “defendant airline qualified as ‘successive carrier’

21 where it sold plaintiff a ticket for both her flight on defendant’s plane and her flight on another

22 airline.” Dkt. No. 7 at 5. The complete quotation of the applicable text from the Best decision is:

23 Based on the uncontested facts, the relationship between BWIA and

LIAT is that of successive carriers. It is undisputed that BWIA sold

24 Mrs. Best a ticket for both her travel on BWIA to Port of Spain, and

her flight on LIAT from Port of Spain to Grenada.

25

26 Best, 581 F. Supp. 2d at 363.

27 The Court cautions Ms. Braik that mere disagreement with a decision of this Court is not

1 No. 10 (denying Ms. Braik’s motion to disqualify on this ground). As Ms. Braik has not identified

2 || any grounds supporting reconsideration of the Court’s screening order, her motion for

3 || reconsideration is denied.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 Dated: October 28, 2025

6

7

Virginia K. DeMarchi

8 United States Magistrate Judge

9

10

11

12

15

16

= 17

Z 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28