C.F.R. » Title 14 » CHAPTER II—OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (AVIATION PROCEEDINGS) › SUBCHAPTER A—ECONOMIC REGULATIONS › PART 253—NOTICE OF TERMS OF CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE

14 C.F.R. § 253.10

Notice of contract of carriage choice-of-forum provisions

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

No carrier may impose any contract of carriage provision containing a choice-of-forum clause that attempts to preclude a passenger, or a person who purchases a ticket for air transportation on behalf of a passenger, from bringing a claim against a carrier in any court of competent jurisdiction, including a court within the jurisdiction of that passenger's residence in the United States (provided that the carrier does business within that jurisdiction).

[Doc. No. DOT-OST-2010-0140, 76 FR 23163, Apr. 25, 2011]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2021–2024 · leading case: Winifredo Herrera v. Cathay Pac. Airways Ltd., 94 F.4th 1083 (9th Cir. 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Winifredo Herrera v. Cathay Pac. Airways Ltd., 94 F.4th 1083 (9th Cir. 2024). · cites it 4× “As a threshold issue, the panel held that 14 C.F.R. § 253.10 did not bar Cathay Pacific’s motion to compel ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court.”
Bugarin v. All Nippon Airways Co., Ltd. (N.D. Cal. 2021). · cites it 5× “Effect of 14 C.F.R. § 253.10 27 Bugarin asserts that federal regulations bar ANA from including an arbitration provision in 1 to enforce ASAP’s arbitration provision.”
Winifredo Herrera v. Cathay Pac. Airways Ltd. (9th Cir. 2024). · cites it 4× “As a threshold issue, the panel held that 14 C.F.R. § 253.10 did not bar Cathay Pacific’s motion to compel arbitration on equitable estoppel grounds.”
Rudolph v. United Airlines Holdings, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2021). · cites it 3× “14 C.F.R. § 253.10 , which he argues makes clear that he is “entitled to sue in this Court” even if the Arbitration Clause is otherwise valid and enforceable.”
Bombin v. Sw. Airlines Co. (E.D. Pa. 2023). · cites it 3× “10 Plaintiffs aver the class action waiver is barred by 14 C.F.R. § 253.10 . ECF No. 145 at 25. On the other hand, Southwest contends Section 253.”
Capua v. Air Europa Lineas Aereas S.A. Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2021). · cites it 2× “And fifth, Capua argues that a federal regulation (namely 14 C.F.R. § 253.10 ) prohibits Air Europa from enforcing the arbitration clause.”
Milosevic v. Turk Hava Yollari A.O, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2022). “” 14 C.F.R. Section 253.10. The regulation is designed to prevent airlines from imposing forum selection clauses like this one.”
Sholopa v. Turkish Airlines, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2022). “” 14 C.F.R. Section 253.10. The regulation is designed to prevent airlines from imposing forum selection clauses like this one.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.