Bah v. Royal Air Maroc

Background

Mamadou L. Bah, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Royal Air Maroc under 49 U.S.C. § 40127(a), alleging discrimination, breach of contract, and harassment. He sought $10,000,000 in punitive damages. Bah alleged that, before a flight from Guinea to the United States, Royal Air Maroc employees required him to pay $205 to bring his carry-on bag aboard, despite his belief that his ticket allowed two bags. He also alleged that a supervisor made discriminatory remarks, including statements about his race and nationality.

Royal Air Maroc moved to dismiss, arguing that Bah had not stated a claim for relief and that the Montreal Convention governed his claims. While opposing that motion, Bah requested permission to amend his complaint. Royal Air Maroc opposed amendment on the ground that it would be futile, meaning that the revised complaint supposedly could not cure the legal problems in the original complaint.

Court’s analysis

The court treated Bah’s request in his opposition as a motion to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Courts generally give a self-represented plaintiff at least one opportunity to amend unless there is undue delay, bad faith, or prejudice to the opposing party.

The court found that this was Bah’s first request to amend and that the record showed no undue delay, bad faith, or prejudice. Royal Air Maroc did not argue that amendment would cause undue delay or prejudice. The court also rejected the futility argument because Bah’s proposed amendment alleged a physical injury that could conceivably bring the claim within the Montreal Convention’s scope, assuming that Convention governed the dispute. The court concluded that Bah might be able to allege additional facts supporting a valid claim.

Ruling and case status

The court granted Bah’s motion to amend the complaint. Bah was ordered to file the amended complaint by December 31, 2025. The opinion did not decide Royal Air Maroc’s pending motion to dismiss. The court stated that the amended complaint would moot that motion and set deadlines for Royal Air Maroc’s answer or motion to dismiss the amended complaint, Bah’s opposition, and Royal Air Maroc’s reply. Discovery remained stayed until the motion responding to the amended complaint was adjudicated.

The opinion was addressed to United States District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, but it was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker.