Cooley v. Menzies Aviation Inc.
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-01437
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Cooley v. Menzies Aviation, Judge Martinez-Olguin dismissed Cooley’s claims with prejudice under the failure-to-state-a-claim rule, finding a signed release barred them and fraud was inadequately pleaded.
Frederick Marc Cooley’s claims against Menzies Aviation (USA) Inc. and Menzies employees arising from the January 15, 2023 incident were dismissed with prejudice. The order also addresses attorneys’ fees sought by Menzies.
What happened
Cooley v. Menzies Aviation (USA) Inc. concerns Frederick Marc Cooley’s claims arising from an alleged incident while he was boarding a flight. Cooley alleged that Menzies employees impeded his travel, grabbed his arm without consent, and caused him to miss the flight.
Menzies argued that Cooley had signed a general release after settling claims related to the incident. Cooley also alleged that Menzies’s lawyer promised payment within 30 days, but the court found that the complaint did not adequately allege fraud and that the written release barred the claims.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin granted Menzies’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and dismissed the claims against Menzies and its employees with prejudice. The order also states that Cooley must pay Menzies’s attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing motions to dismiss, and that the defendants may file a fee request under the court’s local rule.
The detailed version
- Cooley v. Menzies Aviation Inc. · No. 3:24-cv-01437
- Martinez-Olguin
- Feb. 25, 2025
Background
Frederick Marc Cooley sued Menzies Aviation (USA) Inc. and other defendants over an alleged incident while he was boarding Frontier flight F91103 from Orlando, Florida, to Oakland, California, on January 15, 2023. The opinion says Cooley alleged that Menzies employees improperly impeded his travel and grabbed his arm without consent, resulting in his inability to board.
Menzies moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. Menzies asked the court to dismiss Cooley’s Second Amended Complaint. Menzies and Cooley had reached a settlement, and Cooley signed a general release on March 25, 2024, covering claims arising from the January 15, 2023 incident.
Release
The court took judicial notice of the release because Cooley’s complaint referred to it repeatedly and relied on its terms. The court found that the release covered claims, damages, remedies, and causes of action arising from the incident, including known and unknown claims. It also found that the release was the parties’ complete agreement and that alleged oral promises could not add to or change its written terms.
The court therefore held that Cooley’s claims against Menzies and Menzies’s employees were barred by the release. It dismissed those claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
Fraud claims
The court separately addressed Cooley’s claims for fraud in the inducement and fraudulent misrepresentation. Cooley alleged that Menzies’s counsel said he would receive payment within 30 days after signing the release. The court found that this alleged statement concerned a future payment and was not an actionable misrepresentation of a past or existing fact.
The court also found that Cooley did not plead particular facts showing that the statement was knowingly false when made, that Menzies or its counsel intended to defraud him, or that Cooley justifiably relied on the statement. The court noted that the release did not contain the alleged 30-day payment term, and that Cooley had the opportunity to read the release. It dismissed the fraud claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
Attorneys’ fees and disposition
The order states that Cooley must pay Menzies’s attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint and Second Amended Complaint. It permits the defendants to file a request for fees under Civil Local Rule 54-5. The court also found that further amendment would be futile and dismissed the claims with prejudice.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin signed the order on February 25, 2025.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.