Cox v. Spirit Airlines, Inc.

• Decision Date: 20 November 2018
• Docket Number: 17-CV-5172 (WFK)
• Citation: 340 F.Supp.3d 154
• Parties: Thomas COX, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

340 F.Supp.3d 154

Thomas COX, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC., Defendant.

17-CV-5172 (WFK)

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

Signed November 20, 2018

John W. Hermina, Hermina Law Group, Laurel, MD, Gregory Joseph Allen, Home Office, Milford, CT, for Plaintiffs.

Mark Wayne Robertson, Daniel Jonathan Franklin, Stephanie Ann Drotar, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant.

DECISION & ORDER

WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II, United States District Judge:

Plaintiffs bring this putative class action suit on behalf of themselves and similarly-situated others against Spirit Airlines, Inc. ("Defendant" or "Spirit") asserting state law claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud. Plaintiffs allege Defendant, an air carrier, misled Plaintiffs into believing they were purchasing a low airfare at a specific price, and thereafter breached the agreement by requiring Plaintiffs to pay additional fees for carry-on baggage. Defendant now moves to dismiss the action under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the grounds that Plaintiffs' claims are preempted by federal law and fail to allege a viable cause of action. The Court held oral argument on this motion on October 31, 2018, and the Court reserved its decision. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are twenty-two individuals who purchased airfare to travel to various locations within the United States on Spirit Airlines between 2012 and 2016. Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") ¶¶ 13-32, ECF No. 60. Plaintiffs purchased their airline tickets exclusively through third-party online travel agents. Id. ¶¶ 6, 13-32. Plaintiffs allege, at the time of purchase, they were not aware that Spirit charges additional fees for carry-on bags, which Plaintiffs allege they believed were included in the rate for their air travel. Id. ¶¶ 13-32, 39-40, 42. Plaintiffs first learned of the unexpected carry-on fees after they arrived at the airport and were forced to pay exorbitant fees that were equal to a significant portion of the ticket price. Id. ¶¶ 7, 13-32, 41. Plaintiffs allege the carry-on fees were "unanticipated" and "unforeseen," and Plaintiffs were "unaware" of them. Id. ¶ 42. They allege they were not aware of the additional fees because third-party agents "withhold the information regarding the surprise carry-on payments." Id. ¶ 6. Moreover, Plaintiffs allege Spirit "does not make its fee structure clear ... at the time of purchase" and withholds "certain material facts regarding the total pricing of a flight." Id. ¶¶ 7, 9.

Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs assert state law claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud. Id. ¶¶ 38-57. Plaintiffs seek to bring these claims on behalf of "all persons who contracted with Spirit Airlines to travel on Spirit Airlines flights during the period extending from August 31, 2011 through and to the filing of this Complaint and who were required to pay additional fees for carry-on items and bags over and above the contracted amount." Id. ¶ 34.

Defendant now moves to dismiss the action under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing Plaintiffs' claims are preempted by federal law and fail to allege a viable cause of action. Mem. in Supp. of Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss ("Mot."), ECF No. 71; see also Pl.'s Mem. in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss ("Opp'n"), ECF No. 73; Reply Mem. in Supp. of Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss ("Reply"), ECF No. 72. This Court held oral argument on this motion on October 31, 2018. Minute Entry dated 10/31/2018. After hearing argument on the motion, the Court reserved its decision. The Court now addresses Defendant's motion to dismiss the action.

LEGAL STANDARD

To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Ad. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. A complaint must be dismissed where, as a matter of law, "the allegations in [the] complaint, however true, could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief." Twombly , 550 U.S. at 558, 127 S.Ct. 1955. Accordingly, in deciding this motion, this Court must "assess the legal feasibility of the complaint,not ... assay the weight of the evidence which might be offered in support thereof." DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C. , 622 F.3d 104, 113 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). In so doing, the Court must "accept[ ] all (factual allegations in the complaint as true, and draw[ ] all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor," Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc. , 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002), but is "not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation," Pension Ben. Guar. Corp. ex rel. St. Vincent Catholic Med. Centers Ret. Plan v. Morgan Stanley Inv. Mgmt. Inc. , 712 F.3d 705, 717 (2d Cir. 2013) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

DISCUSSION

The Airline Deregulation Act ("ADA") prohibits States from "enact[ing] or enforc[ing] a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law relating to a price, route, or service of an air carrier." 49 U.S.C. § 41713(b)(1) (previously codified at 49 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(1) ). Congress enacted the ADA "[t]o ensure that the States would not undo federal deregulation" of the airline industry. Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. , 504 U.S. 374, 378, 112 S.Ct. 2031, 119 L.Ed.2d 157 (1992).

In Morales , the Supreme Court explained that the "key phrase" in understanding the scope of ADA preemption is "relating to," and defined the "relating to" language as "having a connection with, or reference to, airline ‘rates, routes, or services.’ " Id. at 383, 112 S.Ct. 2031. Applying this definition, the Supreme Court held the ADA preempts generally applicable state laws in the specific context of airline advertising and marketing. Id. at 386-87, 112 S.Ct. 2031 ; Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens , 513 U.S. 219, 240, 115 S.Ct. 817, 130 L.Ed.2d 715 (1995) (O'Connor, J., concurring) ("[I]n Morales [,] we held that an action to invoke the State's coercive power against an airline, by means of a generally applicable law, when the subject matter of the action related to airline rates, would constitute ‘Stat[e] ... enforce[ment]’ of a ‘law ... relating to rates, routes, or services.’ "). In Wolens , the Supreme Court re-affirmed the breadth of ADA preemption but carved out a limited exception for "suits alleging no violation of state-imposed obligations, but seeking recovery solely for the airline's alleged breach of its own, self-imposed undertakings." 513 U.S. at 228, 115 S.Ct. 817. The Court held the ADA would not preempt breach of contract claims confined to a contract's terms because "terms and conditions airlines offer and passengers accept are privately ordered obligations." Id. Thus, "relief to a party who claims and proves that an airline dishonored a term the airline itself stipulated" is not precluded by the ADA. Id. at 232-33, 115 S.Ct. 817.

The Supreme Court has further opined on the "unusual breadth of the ADA's pre-emption provision." Altria Grp., Inc. v. Good , 555 U.S. 70, 85, 129 S.Ct. 538, 172 L.Ed.2d 398 (2008). In a recent decision, the Court held the ADA preempts a state law claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing if it seeks to enlarge the contractual obligations that the parties voluntarily adopt. Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg , 572 U.S. 273, 276, 134 S.Ct. 1422, 188 L.Ed.2d 538 (2014). In so doing, the Court concluded that the phrase "other provision having the force and effect of law" in the ADA includes state common-law claims. Id. at 281-84, 134 S.Ct. 1422 ("[S]tate common-law rules fall comfortably within the language of the ADA pre-emption provision.").

Applying these principles, this Court finds Plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud are preempted by the ADA and must be dismissed. Each claim is addressed in turn below.

A. Breach of Contract Claim

As stated above, preemption of a breach of contract claim under the ADA turns on whether the obligation breached was imposed by the state or voluntarily undertaken by the airline. Under Wolens , the ADA does not prohibit breach of contract actions that seek recovery for an airline's breach of its own self-imposed undertakings. Wolens , 513 U.S. at 232-33, 115 S.Ct. 817. However, the court is confined "to the parties' bargain, with no enlargement or enhancement based on state laws or policies external to the agreement." Id. (footnote omitted). Relief would not be preempted only if a plaintiff claims and proves that an airline dishonored a term to which the airline itself stipulated. Id. Here, because Plaintiffs seek to impermissibly enlarge or enhance their agreement with Spirit, Plaintiff's breach of contract claim is preempted by the ADA.

Plaintiffs cite a recent Ninth Circuit case applying Wolens and Ginsberg for the proposition that if a plaintiff "adequately pleaded breach of contract, then her claim is not preempted." Opp'n at 16-17 (citing Hickcox-Huffman v. U.S. Airways, Inc. , 855 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2017) ). In that case, the plaintiff sought a refund of a baggage fee, alleging that, by failing to deliver her bag upon arrival, the airline breached a contract. Hickcox-Huffman , 855 F.3d at 1059. In citing this case, Plaintiffs leave out a critical distinction between that case and this one. Hickcox-Huffman states: "if [plaintiff] has adequately pleaded breach of a contract provision that US Airways voluntarily entered into , her claim is not preempted." Id. at...