Clark-Alonso v. Southwest Airlines Co.

Background

Mike Clark-Alonso sued Southwest Airlines Co. under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, alleging that Southwest recorded or monitored telephone calls involving California residents without the consent of all parties. The complaint focused on a call Clark-Alonso made from California to Southwest’s Rapid Rewards customer-service number on July 22, 2019. He alleged that Southwest did not disclose that the call was being recorded and brought the case on behalf of himself and a proposed class of California residents.

Southwest’s Rapid Rewards rules included a forum-selection clause. The clause stated that disputes arising out of or relating to the program would be litigated exclusively in state or federal courts within Dallas County, Texas. Southwest argued that the clause required the case to be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Parties’ Positions

Southwest argued that the claim was covered because it arose from a call Clark-Alonso placed to the Rapid Rewards telephone number. Clark-Alonso argued that his claim did not require interpretation of the Rapid Rewards rules, analysis of the program, or a dispute about his membership or participation in the program. He also argued that the clause would be unenforceable if it covered the claim.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied federal contract law to determine the scope of the forum-selection clause. It explained that a clause covering disputes “arising out of” an agreement generally applies to disputes involving the agreement’s interpretation or performance. A clause covering disputes “relating to” an agreement applies when the dispute references the agreement or has a logical or causal connection to it.

The court concluded that the clause did not apply. Resolving Clark-Alonso’s California recording claim would not require interpreting the Rapid Rewards rules or deciding whether either party performed under those rules. The claim also did not reference the rules or have a logical or causal connection to them. The fact that Clark-Alonso used the Rapid Rewards telephone number because of his program membership was too indirect to make the claim related to the rules.

Because the court found that the clause did not cover the claim, it did not address the parties’ arguments about whether the clause was enforceable.

Disposition

The court denied Southwest’s motion to transfer venue. The order did not decide the merits of the California Invasion of Privacy Act claim.