PHILADELPHIA – A federal judge has decreed that several claims will be dismissed from a lawsuit brought by two passengers removed from an American Airlines flight nearly three years ago, but retained counts for assault and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Amanda Brown and Tiffany Nixon of Philadelphia filed suit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on May 16, 2023 versus American Airlines Group, Inc., of Fort Worth, Texas.
American Airlines then removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 25, 2023, citing diversity of jurisdiction between the parties and the amount of damages at issue.
In a Jan. 23 memorandum opinion, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge John R. Padova reviewed the complaint’s allegations.
“On March 30, 2021, plaintiffs boarded a flight from New Orleans to Philadelphia operated by defendant. As others were still boarding, a flight attendant told plaintiff Brown that she needed to place her purse on the floor. Plaintiff Brown attempted to comply, but was delayed by the strap of her purse becoming tangled with her seatbelt. The flight attendant, mistakenly believing that plaintiff Nixon had said something, asked her to repeat what she had said. Plaintiff Nixon replied that she had not spoken, and the flight attendant left to speak with another flight attendant, who returned and told plaintiff Nixon to ‘be nice,” Padova said.
“Shortly thereafter, a large man approached plaintiffs and insisted on escorting them from the plane. Plaintiffs, who had been cooperative, polite and non-disruptive, were bewildered, but complied. The entire incident was witnessed and video recorded by plaintiffs’ friend, seated elsewhere on the plane. A large group of defendant’s employees, including the two flight attendants and eight pilots, stood in the jet way and watched as plaintiffs were removed from the plane. The crew then made several announcements to the remaining passengers stating that everything was fine and there had been no incident.”
Padova added that upon disembarking, the plaintiffs repeatedly requested the names of the flight attendants and pilot, as well as an explanation for their removal from the flight, but received no answers from American Airlines staff.
“Plaintiffs were rebooked, but on a less direct flight leaving the following morning, and they received no assistance with securing overnight accommodations. As plaintiffs had no transportation, they were forced to stay at a nearby motel which was distressingly filthy and dilapidated. Plaintiff Brown sought therapy due to symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder following the hotel stay,” Padova said.
“To date, the only explanation for the incident provided by defendant is that plaintiffs refused to wear facemasks on the plane, which the video shows was not the case. Plaintiffs are African-American and all employees they interacted with were Caucasian, suggesting racial animus as a motive for their otherwise unwarranted treatment.”
The plaintiffs motioned to remand the case to the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on July 1, a move which the defendant opposed – as the parties disagreed on whether the amount of damages at issue met or exceeded the federal court threshold of $75,000.
This led Padova to then issue his opinion on the matter of venue.
“In the complaint, plaintiffs demand damages in excess of $50,000 each and allege ‘significant monetary and emotional damages’ including ‘significant psychological trauma’ and ‘ongoing physical symptoms,’ which, for plaintiff Brown, necessitated ‘extensive psychotherapy.’ Moreover, plaintiffs allege that defendant’s employees were motivated by racial animus, which could support an award of punitive damages under Pennsylvania law. These allegations of serious injury, along with the availability of punitive damages, support a finding that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000,” Padova stated.
“We also consider the allegations in the notice of removal as to the amount in controversy. As we mentioned above, the notice of removal alleges that the amount in controversy has been met based on plaintiffs’ May 16, 2023 settlement demand letter [which sought $150,000 per plaintiff]. We are mindful of the limitations of settlement demands as a measure of the amount in controversy. Nonetheless, while not decisive, plaintiffs’ assertion that they would require $150,000 each for settlement is relevant evidence of their view of the value of the case, prior to removal. In contrast, settlement offers and demands made after removal cannot alter the amount in controversy, nor do we see them as probative of the value of plaintiffs’ claims in this case.”
As a result, Padova ruled that American Airlines had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy in this case exceeds $75,000 and additionally, with the diversity of citizenship between the parties, the judge found the federal court has jurisdiction over this case and denied the plaintiffs’ motion to remand the case.
UPDATE
In response to a dismissal motion from the defendant on May 26, 2023 to either dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or to strike Paragraphs 36 and 72 of the complaint, Padova issued a memorandum opinion on March 4.
This opinion dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims except those for assault and negligent infliction of emotional distress, but denied the motion to strike Paragraphs 36 and 72 and a request punitive damages from the complaint.
“While the conditions of carriage may well constitute the contract at issue in this case, the complaint fails to allege the manner in which the conduct of defendant’s employees breached those conditions or point to a specific provision which defendant breached. Accordingly, we conclude that the complaint fails to allege facts which would permit us to draw a reasonable inference that defendants breached a duty imposed by the conditions of carriage, and therefore fails to state a claim for breach of contract upon which relief can be granted. We therefore grant the motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim in Count I of the complaint [without prejudice],” Padova said.
“The complaint alleges that plaintiffs purchased tickets from defendant for American Airlines flight 5089 from New Orleans, Louisiana to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The compliant does not allege that the object purchased by plaintiffs from defendant was the contract of carriage, but only that the contract of carriage contains the essential terms of the contract between plaintiffs and defendant. We can only conclude that the ‘purpose or essence’ of plaintiffs’ transaction with defendant was to purchase tickets for air transportation, not to obtain the contract of carriage. Because transportation is not a tangible thing that is movable, it is not a good. We conclude, based on this authority, that neither the tickets purchased by plaintiffs nor the contract of carriage constitute a ‘good’ pursuant to Pennsylvania’s UCC and, therefore, that the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose does not apply. Accordingly, we grant the motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs’ claim for breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose in Count II of the complaint. As this case does not involve a transaction in goods, we conclude that any attempt to amend this claim would be futile, and we therefore dismiss this claim with prejudice.”
Padova also dismissed the false imprisonment, false light invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims without prejudice – but retained the assault and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims.
“Construing the [assault allegations] “in the light most favorable to [plaintiffs],” these allegations of sudden and unwarranted behavior by defendant’s employees support plaintiffs’ claim that defendant intended to place plaintiffs ‘in reasonable apprehension of an immediate [harmful or offensive contact].’ Similarly, we conclude that plaintiffs have alleged facts showing that they were in fact placed in apprehension of such contact based on the alleged racial dynamic and resultant trauma. We therefore conclude that the complaint states a facially plausible claim for assault and we deny defendant’s motion to dismiss with respect to Count V,” Padova stated.
“Furthermore, even negligence claims, such as plaintiffs’ negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, are not automatically pre-empted under Abdullah. Only the standard of care is pre-empted – supplanted by federal safety standards – while state law ‘still govern[s] the other negligence elements (breach, causation and damages), as well as the choice and availability of remedies.’ As defendant makes no argument that the complaint fails to state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress under any standard of care, we cannot conclude that plaintiffs’ negligent infliction of emotional distress claim is pre-empted under Abdullah. Accordingly, we hold that defendant has not met its burden to prove that plaintiffs’ claims for assault and negligent infliction of emotional distress are pre-empted by the Federal Aviation Act, and we deny the motion to dismiss those claims on pre-emption grounds.”
Finally, Padova further granted the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint that corrects the deficiencies noted above, on the claims which were dismissed without prejudice.
For counts of assault and negligent infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of $50,000 each, as well as attorney’s fees, punitive damages and costs.
The plaintiffs are represented by Aaron A. Mixon of Mixon Law Firm, in Philadelphia.
The defendant is represented by Nathan R. Bohlander of Morgan & Akins, also in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-02001
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 230303330
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com