Clowdus v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
| Docket Number | 22-14053 |
| Decision Date | 07 August 2023 |
| Parties | TROY CLOWDUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
DO NOT PUBLISH
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-23155-KMM Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and JORDAN and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
Troy Clowdus appeals the dismissal of his claim of defamation per se and the judgment on the pleadings in favor of American Airlines on his claims of breach of contract. We affirm.
Clowdus's complaint alleged that in June 2021 he boarded an early flight from Miami to Mexico City. While taking his seat in business class, a flight attendant later identified as Carlos Merino instructed him to stow his satchel in the overhead bin because his seat was in the bulkhead row. Clowdus, who flew often, believed he could wait to stow his satchel until boarding finished, so he nodded his head, put on his headphones, and began working on his phone while the other passengers boarded.
The complaint alleged that Clowdus was working on his phone when he realized that Merino, who had been behaving in a "loud and manic fashion" during boarding, had been speaking to him and appeared angry that Clowdus had not responded immediately. Clowdus removed his headphones, and Merino loudly instructed, "Give me the bag!" twice. Clowdus shook his head at Merino's tone but moved to comply. Clowdus looked back at his phone to "disconnect" from Merino's anger, grabbed his satchel from behind his leg, and pulled the satchel "across the armrest to the far side of the seat beside him." Clowdus "felt the bag make slight contact with Merino." Merino shouted twice "You hit me!" but Clowdus denied "hitting" him and explained that he had handed his bag to Merino. Merino shouted, Merino "stormed" to the front of the plane and returned a few seconds later. Clowdus tried to apologize and deescalate the situation, but Merino said, Merino walked to the front of the plane and told someone in the front galley that he would not fly with Clowdus.
The complaint alleged that another airline employee, later identified as ground security coordinator Jose Henriquez, was on the jetway when he heard Merino shouting, "You hit me!" Henriquez boarded the plane to ask Clowdus if they could speak on the jetway, where he explained to Clowdus that Merino would not fly unless Clowdus was removed from the plane. The airline rebooked Clowdus on the next flight, but after he boarded the second flight, several men who identified themselves as airline security boarded and instructed Clowdus to "follow them off the plane." The head of security "expressed sympathy" and advised that the incident should be cleared up in a few days. About two weeks later, the airline informed Clowdus that, following its investigation, it had decided to ban Clowdus from flying with it.
Clowdus sued the airline for defamation per se, breach of contract of carriage, and breach of contract of the airline's loyalty program, in which he held a valuable interest in miles, paid lounge access, and other benefits. He alleged that Merino committed defamation per se by "accusing [Clowdus] of assaulting an airline employee who was engaged in the performance of his duties," which resulted in the airline terminating Clowdus's frequent flyer membership and banning him from flying with the airline. And he alleged the airline breached the contract of carriage by refusing to transport him to Mexico City even though he "complied with every provision in the contract and took no action triggering any exception to the contract."
The airline moved for judgment on the pleadings. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). It attached to its motion copies of the Conditions of Carriage contract and the AAdvantage Program Terms and Conditions, which it asserted were governed by Texas law and could be considered without conversion to a motion for summary judgment because the contracts were undisputedly authentic and central to the breach-of-contract claims. Clowdus responded to the airline's motion and referenced the terms of the Conditions of Carriage and the Program, but he did not dispute the authenticity of the documents or argue that the district court was not permitted to consider them.
The district court granted in part the airline's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The district court dismissed the defamation per se claim without prejudice because the claim failed to allege publication, but it granted Clowdus leave to file an amended complaint. The district court dismissed the two breach-of-contract claims with prejudice. It determined that the Conditions of Carriage, which the parties did not dispute was a valid, relevant contract, afforded the airline "wide latitude" to remove passengers for a number of reasons that did not amount to a formal breach. The district court ruled that, because Clowdus's allegations established that he failed to comply with Merino's first instruction to stow his satchel and that his satchel later touched Merino, the airline was within its right under the Conditions of Carriage to refuse carriage on the first and second flights. And the district court ruled that this conduct also allowed the airline to suspend his loyalty program membership because the AAdvantage Program Terms provided that members "[do] not own, [have] vested rights to [or] property interest in the Program miles, benefits, or participation" and that "[a]ccrued mileage credit and award tickets do not constitute property of the member." The district court ruled that, even if Clowdus had some justiciable interest in the AAdvantage account, the program terms expressly permitted his termination.
Clowdus amended his complaint to allege the following regarding his claim of defamation per se. Merino knew he was falsely accusing Clowdus of a felony when he shouted, "You hit me!" Merino published this statement when he "enlisted another flight attendant (Deon Gray) to provide a statement supporting his false allegation by providing a corroborating [Corporate Event Reporting System] report stating that she witnessed the alleged assault." And Merino published "this defamatory accusation" to Henriquez when Merino "made the allegation." Merino also published "his defamatory accusation" during a conversation with the passenger in seat 3E, because the passenger in seat 3A overheard Merino say that he did not "know why people had to behave like that." Merino published "this defamatory accusation" to corporate security employees Chris Reddig and Aristides Maldonado, both of whom received Merino's incident report. Clowdus further alleged that the airline ratified Merino's "defamatory statements" when Maldonado summarized the results of his investigation in the Internal Refuse List Checklist by stating that "Clowdus physically assaulted [] Merino by grabbing his carry-on bag and deliberately hitting [him] in the stomach with it."
The district court dismissed the claim. It ruled that Merino's statement "You hit me" lacked sufficient falsity because Clowdus admitted that he "felt the bag make slight contact with Merino." It ruled that Merino's statement about not knowing "why people had to behave like that" was not factual and did not accuse Clowdus of committing a felony. And it ruled that Clowdus alleged no plausible facts to support his allegation that the incident reports filed by Merino and Gray were false or accused Clowdus of a felony, as he included "no description of what was stated in the [incident] reports.
We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint. Einhorn v. Axogen, Inc., 42 F.4th 1218, 1222 (11th Cir. 2022). And we review de novo a judgment on the pleadings. Samara v. Taylor, 38 F.4th 141, 149 (11th Cir. 2022).
We divide our discussion in two parts. First, we address Clowdus's claim for defamation per se. Second, we address his claims for breach of contract.
Clowdus argues that the district court erred by determining that Merino's two oral statements-which he communicated to Henriquez, Gray, and the passenger in seat 3E-were not slander per se. He argues that anyone hearing those statements would have understood that Merino was accusing him of feloniously assaulting an airline employee. We disagree.
Under Florida law, defamation of a private person requires publication of a defamatory statement that is false and causes its subject actual damages. Turner v. Wells, 879 F.3d 1254, 1262 (11th Cir. 2018). In an action for defamation per se, a plaintiff need not prove special damages because per se defamatory statements are "so obviously defamatory" and "damaging to reputation" that their publication "gives rise to an absolute presumption of malice and damage." Wolfson v. Kirk, 273 So.2d 774, 776 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1973). But "[t]rue statements, statements that are not readily capable of being proven false, and statements of pure opinion are protected from defamation actions by the First Amendment." Turner, 879 F.3d at 1262.
The district court did not err by determining that Clowdus failed to state a claim for defamation per se. The alleged oral statements by Merino-"You hit me" and "I don't know why people have to behave like that"-are not "false." See id. at 1264. As to the first statement, Clowdus admitted that he felt his satchel make contact with Merino. "Hit" means a "physical strike," not necessarily a felonious physical assault as Clowdus insists it must. Hit, Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). Because Merino's statement ...
To continue reading
Request your trial