not plausibly incorporate EU 261 but instead explains that those rights are defined and subject to the rules of EU 261. In sum, the provisions of the Conditions of .Carriage quoted in the Complaint, with no other evidence of incorporation, fall short of plausibly establishing the requisite “clear and specific” intent to incorporate Articles 6 and 7 of EU 261 into the Conditions of Carriage. 188 LLC, 300 F.3d at 736; see, e.g., Mandel Metals, Inc. v. Walker Group Holdings, Case No. 14 CV 8493, 2015 WL 3962005 at *5 (N.D.Ill. June 26, 2015) (granting motion to dismiss breach of contract claims because of insufficient evidence that Terms and Conditions were incorporated into contract); Lozano v. United Cont’l Holdings, Inc., No. 11 C 8258, 2012 WL 4094648 at *3-5 (N.D.Ill. Sep. 17, 2012) (<HOLDING>); Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Henry Bros. Constr.
holding that federal statutes and regulations can form the basis of a breach of contract claim if expressly incorporated into the contract holding that plaintiff entitled to recover for changes not incorporated into contract under theory of breach holding that the statute incorporated all the rights and obligations of the contract emphasis added holding eu 261 not incorporated into contract because language clearly designed to give notice of rights under eu 261 holding breachofcontract claim preempted because the plaintiff tried to enlarge the federal rights that were incorporated into the contract