Lindsey v. American Airlines, Inc.
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:24-cv-01440
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Lindsey v. American Airlines, Judge Seeborg treated Lindsey’s errata as a motion to file a second amended complaint and denied two other motions as moot.
James Earl Lindsey and American Airlines, Inc.; the order allowed Lindsey to seek filing of a second amended complaint and made the two pending motions unnecessary.
What happened
Lindsey v. American Airlines, Inc. concerns an altercation between James Earl Lindsey and a flight attendant on an American Airlines flight from the Dominican Republic to Miami. Lindsey, who was representing himself, alleged negligent, intentional, and discriminatory conduct.
Lindsey filed a document called a “Notice of Errata” after filing a motion seeking to amend his first amended complaint. The court treated the errata according to its purpose rather than its title and considered it a request for permission to file a second amended complaint.
Judge Richard Seeborg granted permission to file the second amended complaint. The court denied as moot American’s motion to strike parts of the first amended complaint and Lindsey’s September 3, 2024 motion for leave to amend.
The detailed version
- Lindsey v. American Airlines, Inc. · No. 3:24-cv-01440
- Richard Seeborg
- Sept. 24, 2024
Background
The case arose from an incident on an American Airlines flight from the Dominican Republic to Miami in February 2024. James Earl Lindsey sued American in March 2024, alleging negligent, intentional, and discriminatory conduct. Lindsey was proceeding without a lawyer.
American had moved to dismiss Lindsey’s complaint, arguing that the Montreal Convention preempted his claims. The opinion does not decide that motion. The procedural history also states that American filed an answer and a motion to strike portions of Lindsey’s first amended complaint, and that Lindsey filed a September 3, 2024 document titled “Second Motion to Amend.”
The Filing at Issue
On September 19, 2024, Lindsey filed a “Notice of Errata,” explaining that he intended his September 3 motion to replace the first amended complaint entirely with a second amended complaint. American objected that a notice of errata was not the proper procedural method and argued that Lindsey’s attempt to file a second amended complaint should be denied.
The court explained that self-represented parties must still follow procedural rules, but their filings should be evaluated by their function rather than their form. Applying that approach, the court treated Lindsey’s September 19 filing as a motion for leave—permission from the court—to file a second amended complaint.
Ruling
The court granted leave to file the second amended complaint. It stated that American could oppose Lindsey’s September 19 filing, which would be treated as the request for leave. The court also stated that its order did not allow Lindsey to amend his pleadings in the future without seeking permission through the proper procedures.
Because leave to file the second amended complaint was granted, the court denied as moot American’s motion to strike portions of the first amended complaint and Lindsey’s September 3, 2024 motion seeking leave to amend the first amended complaint. “Moot” means that the court no longer needed to decide those motions because the later ruling made them unnecessary. The order did not decide the underlying allegations or American’s argument concerning the Montreal Convention.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.