Skiplagged, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines, Co.
- John Cronan
- 1:21-cv-05749
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Skiplagged v. Southwest Airlines, Judge Cronan dismissed Skiplagged’s anticipatory lawsuit after Southwest threatened litigation in Texas.
Skiplagged, Inc.’s declaratory judgment action was dismissed; Southwest Airlines Co.’s motion to dismiss was granted.
What happened
Skiplagged, Inc. asked the Southern District of New York to declare that it had not violated Southwest Airlines Co.’s terms, interfered with Southwest’s contracts, or violated federal law. Skiplagged filed the case after Southwest sent three cease-and-desist letters and before Southwest sued in Texas.
The court ruled that Skiplagged’s lawsuit was an improper anticipatory declaratory judgment action. The letters identified potential claims, deadlines, and Texas as the expected forum, and Skiplagged filed its case the day after the final letter.
Judge John P. Cronan granted Southwest’s motion to dismiss and closed the case. He did not decide Southwest’s alternative arguments about personal jurisdiction, venue, or transferring the case, and denied Skiplagged’s request for judicial notice as moot.
The detailed version
- Skiplagged, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines, Co. · No. 1:21-cv-05749
- John Cronan
- June 30, 2022
Background
Skiplagged described itself as a free internet travel information service that directed users to other websites to complete ticket purchases. Southwest sent Skiplagged three cease-and-desist letters between June 8 and July 1, 2021. The letters accused Skiplagged of scraping data from Southwest.com, using that data in a third-party service, promoting “hidden-city” tickets, infringing Southwest’s trademark, breaching contractual terms, interfering with Southwest’s contractual relationships, and violating federal and Texas law.
The letters set deadlines for compliance and identified the Northern District of Texas as the forum where Southwest could sue. On July 2, 2021—the day after the final letter—Skiplagged filed this one-count action seeking declarations that it was not bound by Southwest’s terms and had not engaged in the alleged unlawful conduct. Southwest later filed a separate action against Skiplagged in the Northern District of Texas.
Southwest moved to dismiss this New York action as an improper anticipatory declaratory judgment action. It also alternatively sought dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction and lack of venue, or transfer to the Northern District of Texas.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that the usual first-filed rule generally gives priority to the lawsuit filed first. But an exception applies when a party files a declaratory judgment action in response to a specific threat of litigation, thereby depriving the party that would naturally bring the underlying claims of its preferred forum.
The court held that Southwest’s letters provided a specific threat. They identified potential claims, demanded compliance by stated deadlines, warned that litigation could follow, and identified the Northern District of Texas as the forum. The court also found significant that Skiplagged filed its complaint the day after Southwest’s final letter and expressly stated that the case arose from Southwest’s threat to sue.
Because the action was improperly anticipatory, the court dismissed it without reaching Southwest’s alternative arguments concerning personal jurisdiction, venue, or transfer. The court also denied as moot Skiplagged’s request for judicial notice of a settlement in Southwest’s separate lawsuit against Kiwi.com.
Disposition
Judge John P. Cronan granted Southwest’s motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the pending motions and the case.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.