Ungar v. JetBlue Airways Corporation

Background

Brucha Ungar, Miriam Lunger, and Abraham Lunger sued JetBlue Airways Corporation, a flight attendant identified as Jane Doe, and a pilot identified as John Doe. They alleged that, during boarding for a December 31, 2023 flight from Palm Springs, California, to New York, JetBlue employees prevented Abraham Lunger from changing seats because of his religious modesty beliefs and required all three plaintiffs to leave the plane. The plaintiffs alleged that they were not provided their luggage, overnight accommodations, food, or transportation, and that JetBlue charged them fees when they arranged a different return flight.

The plaintiffs asserted federal discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, along with claims under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. They bought their tickets while in the Southern District of New York, where the opinion says they reside. JetBlue moved to dismiss the amended complaint for improper venue and failure to state a claim, and also argued that the parties’ Contract of Carriage barred the claims.

Venue analysis

The court addressed venue before the other dismissal arguments. Federal law generally permits a civil case to proceed in a district where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or—if no such district exists—in a district where a defendant is subject to the court’s authority.

The court found that the complaint did not establish venue based on the defendants’ residences because it did not state where Jane Doe or John Doe lived. It also found that venue was not proper because the significant events underlying the claims occurred in California. The plaintiffs’ ejection from the flight, the alleged discrimination, and the resulting lack of accommodations and additional travel charges all arose from events at or connected to the Palm Springs airport.

The plaintiffs argued that venue was proper in New York because they purchased their tickets and entered into the Contract of Carriage there. The court rejected that argument. It characterized the claims as primarily involving alleged discrimination and related tortious conduct, not a breach-of-contract dispute. Even if the claims were treated as contract-related, the plaintiffs had not alleged that the contract was negotiated, breached, or performed in the Southern District of New York. The court concluded that the ticket purchase in New York was too limited and lacked a sufficiently close connection to the alleged wrongdoing.

The court also concluded that the fallback venue provision did not apply because the action could be brought in at least one other federal district—the Central District of California—based on where the underlying events occurred.

Other claim and leave to amend

The court stated that the plaintiffs brought one claim solely against JetBlue under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Although it assumed venue might otherwise be proper for that claim against JetBlue, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it after dismissing the federal claims. The court dismissed that state-law claim against JetBlue without prejudice and declined to dismiss or separate the claims against the unidentified defendants because the claims and parties were intertwined.

The court granted the plaintiffs an opportunity to file a second amended complaint. It directed them to address the venue issues and the other grounds for dismissal raised by JetBlue. If they choose to amend, they have 30 days and must have a good-faith basis for doing so. The court warned that it may transfer the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) if the plaintiffs cannot adequately allege venue in the Southern District of New York.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams granted JetBlue’s motion to dismiss for improper venue without prejudice. The court permitted the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint within 30 days and directed the Clerk of Court to close the pending motion.