Amigo Shuttle Inc. v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Background

This Opinion and Order resolved issues raised after the court’s March 26, 2024 Opinion and Order. That earlier decision granted the Port Authority defendants’ motion to dismiss the federal antitrust claims under Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint adequately states a legal claim. The earlier decision concluded that the Port Authority defendants were protected by state-action immunity, that the complaint did not plausibly allege antitrust injury sufficient to give the plaintiffs standing to sue, and that the alleged Clayton Act claim did not provide the notice required by the federal pleading rules.

Kew T. Flyer Inc. filed an answer rather than a motion to dismiss. Christina Contumelio argued that she had not been timely served under Rule 4(m). The court had asked the plaintiffs to explain why the earlier rulings should not also apply to the federal antitrust claims against Kew T. Flyer Inc. and Contumelio and why the court should continue hearing the remaining New York-law claims.

Federal Antitrust Claims

The court dismissed Counts One and Two as to Kew T. Flyer Inc. and Contumelio. It held that the complaint did not plausibly allege an injury to competition in the alleged market for flight-crew shuttle-bus services at Terminals 4 and 5 of John F. Kennedy International Airport. Instead, the complaint described conduct hostile to Amigo Shuttle rather than harm to competition. The court therefore concluded that the plaintiffs lacked antitrust standing as to any defendant.

The court separately ruled that Count Two, described as a Clayton Act claim, cited only 15 U.S.C. § 4, a Sherman Act provision concerning actions brought by the United States. The court held that this did not identify a Clayton Act violation with the notice required by Rule 8(a), and dismissed Count Two as to Kew T. Flyer Inc. and Contumelio on that additional ground.

Service on Contumelio

The court denied Contumelio’s motion to dismiss based on allegedly untimely service. Counsel for Contumelio and Kew T. Flyer Inc. had signed a stipulation agreeing to accept service as of January 5, 2023. The plaintiffs’ counsel emailed the executed stipulation to that counsel on January 6, 2023, and later personally served Contumelio on or about August 15, 2023. The court noted that Contumelio’s counsel did not explain why additional service was required, argue that Contumelio lacked notice, or identify prejudice.

Donnelly Act Claim and Federal Jurisdiction

Count Three asserted a claim under New York’s Donnelly Act against all defendants. The court concluded that it had federal-question jurisdiction over the claim against the Port Authority defendants because resolving whether the Donnelly Act applied to the Port Authority implicated the federally approved interstate compact between New York and New Jersey. The court reasoned that interpreting an interstate compact approved by Congress presents a federal question under the Compact Clause of the United States Constitution.

The court did not decide whether applying the Donnelly Act to the Port Authority would itself be inconsistent with the Compact Clause. Assuming that the claim was constitutionally permissible, the court held that the complaint still failed to state a Donnelly Act claim because it did not plausibly allege injury to competition. Count Three was therefore dismissed as to the Port Authority defendants.

Remaining State-Law Claims

The remaining claims were brought solely under New York law. These included Count Three against Kew T. Flyer Inc. and Contumelio and Counts Four and Five, which alleged tortious interference with contract against the Port Authority defendants.

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning its authority to hear related state-law claims after resolving the federal claims. It concluded that the case was still at the pleading stage and that judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and respect for state courts did not favor federal adjudication. The remaining state-law claims were dismissed.

Request to Amend

The plaintiffs asked for leave to move to amend the complaint to add a Sherman Act claim alleging that the defendants conspired to give Kew T. Flyer Inc. an unlawful monopoly by denying competitors permits and imposing obstructive contractual terms.

The court denied the application. The scheduling order set April 10, 2023, as the deadline for seeking to amend, and the plaintiffs did not request amendment or an extension by that date. The court held that the plaintiffs had not shown the required good cause to modify the scheduling order. The court also stated that, even under the more permissive amendment standard, the proposed amendment would be futile because it was based on the Port Authority’s permitting decisions, which the court had described as an essential governmental function protected by state-action immunity.

Disposition

The court dismissed Counts One and Two as to Kew T. Flyer Inc. and Christina Contumelio; dismissed Count Three as to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Susan Warner Dooley, Amy Fisher, and Sherien Khella; declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and dismissed them; denied the plaintiffs’ application for leave to move to amend; and denied Contumelio’s motion to dismiss for untimely service. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment on the specified claims and close the case. Judge P. Kevin Castel issued the Opinion and Order.