Braik v. Southwest Airlines Co.

Background

Victoria Braik, who was representing herself, filed a complaint asserting ten claims against Southwest Airlines Co., Travelport, LP, Sabre GLBL, Inc., Amadeus North America, Inc., and Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft. She also applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court granted that application but found that the complaint did not plausibly establish federal subject matter jurisdiction, meaning the court's legal authority to hear the case. The court allowed her to amend.

Braik's amended complaint asserted eleven claims. She alleged that she bought an international ticket from United Airlines for travel from San Francisco to Warsaw and then Los Angeles, and separately bought a Southwest ticket from Los Angeles to San Jose. After traveling from Warsaw to Los Angeles with her dog on a United/Lufthansa flight, she alleged that Southwest would not let her board the San Jose flight until she paid a $125 pet fee. She had earlier paid Lufthansa a $150 pet fee. She argued that the Southwest flight should be treated as a continuation of her international trip because the airlines used the same global ticketing systems and Southwest could have known about her itinerary.

Braik asserted unjust enrichment and California unfair-competition claims against Southwest; Montreal Convention, Warsaw Convention, false-advertising, contract-related, and negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims against Southwest and Lufthansa; and reliance, tortious-interference, false-advertising, and unfair-competition claims against the three global distribution-system companies. She sought injunctive relief, monetary damages, and punitive damages.

The opinion also described an earlier round of this dispute, in a prior related proceeding identified as No. 25-cv-08269-EJD. That proceeding involved the same dispute over the pet fee and was dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after Braik amended her complaint. The district judge in that proceeding denied further leave to amend.

Analysis

The amended complaint invoked federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 based on the Montreal Convention, the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

The court concluded that the Montreal Convention did not plausibly apply. The Convention covers international carriage by air. Although it can treat travel by successive carriers as one international operation in some circumstances, the amended complaint did not allege facts showing that United, Lufthansa, and Southwest treated the itinerary as one operation or that the Southwest ticket was sold under an agreement with United or Lufthansa. Instead, Braik alleged that she separately purchased the domestic Los Angeles-to-San Jose flight. The court also rejected the theory that a short connection and shared ticketing systems alone made that flight part of the international trip.

The court further concluded that the Airline Deregulation Act could not supply federal jurisdiction because, as described in the opinion, the Act does not create a private right of action to enforce its provisions. The court found no allegations that any defendant was a foreign state or an agency or instrumentality of one under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and no showing that an exception to sovereign immunity applied. The court therefore concluded that the amended complaint did not plausibly allege a claim arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties of the United States.

Disposition

The court recommended that the amended complaint be dismissed, without leave to amend, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but without prejudice to filing an appropriate complaint in state court. It ordered the Clerk to reassign the case to a district judge because not all parties had consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction. Any party could file objections to the report and recommendation within 14 days after being served. This order was a report and recommendation rather than a statement that the district judge had already entered the recommended dismissal.