Vargas v. Expedia, Inc.
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:23-cv-06338
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
Vargas v. Expedia, Inc.: Judge Haywood Gilliam granted in part and denied in part dismissal motions, dismissing federal claims with prejudice and state claims without prejudice.
Manuel Vargas’s federal claims against the defendants were dismissed with prejudice. His state-law claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, negligence, defamation, and fraud were dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court. Alaska Airlines’ answer was not stricken because Vargas’s motion to strike was terminated as moot.
What happened
In Vargas v. Expedia, Inc., Manuel Vargas alleged that a flight booked through Expedia was canceled and that Expedia, United Airlines, and Alaska Airlines mishandled his refund. He brought claims under federal aviation regulations, sought declaratory relief, and asserted state-law claims.
Vargas alleged that the airlines and Expedia gave him conflicting information about whether the flight was canceled and who had to issue a refund. United later refunded the full ticket price, according to the opinion. Vargas also sued the companies’ chief executives and sought monetary and punitive damages.
Judge Haywood Gilliam granted in part and denied in part Expedia’s and United’s motions to dismiss. He dismissed the federal claims with prejudice because the aviation regulations did not allow a private lawsuit and declaratory relief was unavailable without an underlying legal claim. He declined to hear the remaining state-law claims and dismissed them without prejudice to refiling in state court. He also terminated Vargas’s motion to strike Alaska Airlines’ answer as moot.
The detailed version
- Vargas v. Expedia, Inc. · No. 4:23-cv-06338
- Haywood Gilliam
- Nov. 14, 2024
Background
Manuel Vargas alleged that he purchased a round-trip ticket through Expedia.com for an Alaska Airlines flight scheduled to depart on December 24, 2022. When he tried to check in, an Alaska representative allegedly told him that the flight had been canceled, that no other flights were available, and that he needed to contact United Airlines for a refund. Vargas alleged that Expedia, United, and Alaska then gave him conflicting information about the cancellation and refund. United later maintained that the flight had not been canceled and described Vargas as a “no-show.” The opinion states that United eventually refunded the full ticket price in February 2023.
Vargas sued Expedia, Inc., Expedia CEO Peter Kern, United Airlines, Inc., United CEO Brett J. Hart, Alaska Airlines, Inc., and Alaska CEO Benito Minicucci. His complaint asserted claims under federal aviation regulations for failure to provide a prompt refund, failure to notify him of the cancellation, and unfair or deceptive practices. He also sought declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and asserted state-law claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, negligence, defamation, and fraud. The complaint sought $1.2 million and $250,000 in punitive damages.
Motions and ruling
Alaska’s defendants answered the complaint, and Vargas moved to strike their affirmative defenses. Expedia’s and United’s defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court addressed only the ground it found dispositive: that Vargas’s federal claims failed as a matter of law.
The court held that the federal aviation regulations underlying Counts I, II, and III do not create an implied private right of action, meaning that a private plaintiff cannot sue under those regulations based on the provisions identified in the opinion. The court also held that declaratory relief was unavailable because Vargas lacked a separate cause of action supporting that request. It therefore dismissed the federal aviation-regulation claims and the declaratory-relief claim with prejudice.
The remaining claims arose under state law. After dismissing the claims supporting federal-question jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, which is a court’s authority to hear related state-law claims in the same case. It dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice to refiling in state court. The court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss, terminated the motion to strike as moot, directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the defendants on the federal claims, and ordered the case closed.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.