Brackett v. American Airlines Group Inc.

Background

Bivett Brackett filed the lawsuit in San Francisco County Superior Court, and American Airlines Group Inc. removed it to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Brackett alleged that, on August 4, 2019, she attempted to board a flight from Miami to San Francisco but was stopped by American’s gate agent. According to the complaint, the dispute involved the size of her luggage and whether she could carry it onto the plane. Brackett also alleged that the gate agent yelled at her and blocked her from the entry gate. She described herself as an “African American Woman” and alleged that American’s actions caused racial discrimination, humiliation, and inconvenience.

The complaint asserted four claims: breach of contract, negligence under California Civil Code section 1714, racial discrimination under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, and a claim under California’s Bane Civil Rights Act. American moved to dismiss all of the claims, arguing that Brackett had not adequately alleged their required elements and had improperly attempted to apply California law to events occurring in Florida.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. At this stage, the court generally accepts factual allegations as true but does not accept conclusory statements or unreasonable inferences.

Breach of contract. The court held that Brackett did not identify any specific contract provision that American allegedly breached. Although Brackett argued in her opposition that American’s conditions of carriage were the relevant contract, the complaint did not mention those conditions or identify any provision in them. The court dismissed the breach-of-contract claim with leave to amend because it could not conclude that amendment would be futile.

Negligence. Brackett alleged that American violated a duty to reasonably manage and control its employees under California Civil Code section 1714. The court explained that the cited provision concerns firearms and ammunition and liability for furnishing alcohol to an intoxicated person, not the facts alleged in Brackett’s complaint. The court also found that Brackett cited no authority supporting application of California negligence law to events that took place in Florida. The court dismissed the negligence claim with leave to amend. The court noted that Brackett had cited California Civil Code section 2100 in her opposition, which relates at least generally to common carriers’ duty of care, but found that the complaint still did not adequately allege a failure to use the required care for her safe carriage.

Unruh and Bane Act claims. Brackett conceded that California’s Unruh and Bane Acts might not apply outside California. She did not oppose dismissal of those claims or request leave to amend them. The court therefore dismissed the Unruh and Bane Act claims without leave to amend.

Proposed section 1981 claim. Brackett requested permission to add a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, a federal statute addressing certain forms of racial discrimination in making and enforcing contracts. The court did not decide whether the facts currently alleged would adequately state such a claim. It found only that amendment was not clearly futile at this stage and allowed Brackett one opportunity to amend, including by adding a section 1981 claim. No other new causes of action or defendants could be added.

Disposition

The court granted American’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed Brackett’s breach-of-contract and negligence claims with leave to amend, and dismissed her Unruh and Bane Act claims without leave to amend. Any amended complaint had to be filed within 21 days of the order. The court also vacated the scheduled case-management conference.