Braik v. Southwest Airlines Co.

Background

Victoria Braik filed a complaint against Southwest Airlines Co. and applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court granted that application and screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), a statute requiring review of certain complaints filed without the usual filing fee. In its October 15, 2025 screening order, the court found that the complaint failed to state a claim establishing federal subject-matter jurisdiction and was subject to dismissal on that basis. The court gave Braik an opportunity to file an amended complaint by November 12, 2025.

Braik then filed a motion asking the court to reconsider the screening order. The opinion states that she was representing herself. Although the local rule required her to obtain the court’s permission before filing a reconsideration motion, the court decided to consider the motion on its merits because of her self-represented status.

Braik’s Arguments

Braik appeared to rely on the local rule’s ground allowing reconsideration when the court has failed to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments. She argued that the court erred by finding that her complaint failed to state a claim over which the court had subject-matter jurisdiction, asserting that the Montreal Convention supplied federal subject-matter jurisdiction. She also argued that the court had wrongly referred to or distorted facts, manipulated facts before trial, and misrepresented a prior decision.

As described in the opinion, Braik’s complaint alleged that she purchased two tickets: one for travel from Warsaw, Poland, to Los Angeles, California, on a United Airlines/Lufthansa Airlines flight, and another for travel from Los Angeles to San Jose, California, on Southwest Airlines. The court said it had considered those pleaded facts. It also said it could not have considered facts that were not included in the original complaint, although Braik could include additional factual allegations in an amended complaint.

The court rejected Braik’s reliance on the cases she cited. It said those cases were distinguishable because none involved the circumstances presented here, including a ticket for a flight operated by a different airline. The court also stated that other cases cited by Braik supported its conclusion that the original complaint did not plausibly allege a factual basis for applying the Montreal Convention. Regarding the decision Braik said had been misrepresented, the court said its screening order had accurately described the relevant holding.

Ruling

Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi concluded that Braik had not identified any ground supporting reconsideration of the screening order. The court denied Braik’s motion for reconsideration. The opinion did not itself rule on any amended complaint; it stated that Braik remained able to include additional factual allegations in an amended complaint under the opportunity previously provided by the court.