Cox v. Spirit Airlines, Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 17-CV-5172(EK)(VMS) |
| Parties | THOMAS COX, JULIE FEINER, SUSAN HOTT, SUSY KOSHKAKARYAN, YULIUS MUSTAFA, GRETA SCHOENEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
THOMAS COX, JULIE FEINER, SUSAN HOTT, SUSY KOSHKAKARYAN, YULIUS MUSTAFA, GRETA SCHOENEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC., Defendant.
No. 17-CV-5172(EK)(VMS)
United States District Court, E.D. New York
March 29, 2022
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge.
The plaintiffs in this action allege that they purchased tickets to fly on Spirit Airlines, a low-cost carrier, between May 2012 and July 2017. Given historical practices in the airline industry, they say, they understood the advertised price of their tickets to include the right to bring carry-on bags on board, and were surprised when Spirit informed them - generally during the boarding process - that they would have to pay extra for the privilege. They bring this action for breach of contract and seek certification of a class of first-time Spirit flyers.
The judge previously assigned to the case dismissed Plaintiffs' claims, [1] but the Second Circuit vacated and remanded on the issue of whether the passengers' contracts included the ----
right to take carry-on items onboard. Spirit now moves for summary judgment, and Plaintiffs move for class certification. For the reasons set forth below, I DENY Defendant's motion for summary judgment and GRANT Plaintiffs' motion to proceed as a class.
I. Factual Background[2]
Since August 2010, Defendant Spirit Airlines has charged passengers for carry-on items. Def. 56.1 ¶ 1. Under Spirit's policy, passengers were allowed to carry on one size-restricted “personal item” free of charge. Decl. of Tanner Huysman (“Huysman Decl.”) ¶¶ 3-4, ECF No. 129-34.[3] Spirit described this item as “something like a small backpack or purse.” Id., Ex. 3 at 2, ECF No. 129-25. Spirit charged for any carry-on items that were bigger than, or in addition to, the allotted personal item. See Id. So, a passenger could be charged for a backpack they carried in addition to a purse, for example, or for a weekend bag they placed in the overhead
compartment.[4] These rules - and the cost per carry-on item - changed over the years, and depended on when the passenger made payment (in advance v. at the gate).[5]
Plaintiffs purchased Spirit tickets between May 2012 and July 2017 through six online travel agents, or “OTAs.” The OTAs were Expedia, Travelocity, BookIt, CheapTickets, CheapOair, and Kiwi. Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 7-17. Plaintiffs allege that neither these agents nor Spirit informed them that Spirit would charge fees for carry-on bags. Second Amended Compl. (“SAC”) ¶¶ 13-32, 39-40, 42, ECF No. 31. Plaintiffs also contend that these charges came as a surprise because, during the time period at issue, “it was overwhelmingly the norm in the U.S. that a personal item and one carry-on were included in the price of an airline ticket.” Pl. 56.1 ¶ 48. Spirit does not dispute that prior to 2012, it was the “near uniform” practice of airlines in the U.S. not to charge passengers for carry-on bags. Def. Resp. to Pl. 56.1 ¶ 52.
As a “ticketless airline, ” Spirit did not provide printed tickets to its passengers. Pl. 56.1 ¶ 60. Indeed, when
Plaintiffs booked a Spirit flight through an OTA, Spirit provided no information directly to them at all pre-purchase; any information relating to the flight came from the OTA. Id. ¶ 61. It is undisputed that each OTA displayed some statement about the possibility of additional fees, either prior to purchase or in a confirmation email, but Plaintiffs dispute that these statements were sufficient to notify them prior to purchase of Spirit's practice. Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that prior to purchase, the OTAs provided only inconspicuous hyperlinks or fine print relating to “baggage fees” and “optional services” (as opposed to disclosure relating specifically to carry-ons).
Spirit says that its agents (the OTAs) did provide pre-purchase notification about its policy. The airline invokes OTA disclosures such as: the prices displayed “do not include baggage fees or other fees charged directly by the airline for the included flight, ” Def. 56.1 ¶ 18 (BookIt); the “airline may charge additional fees for checked baggage or other optional services, ” Id. ¶¶ 24-25 (Expedia); “additional baggage fees may apply, ” Id. ¶¶ 32 (CheapTickets); “Baggage restrictions are part of each individual airline's policy and may be subject to change. To check current baggage restrictions, visit your Manage my booking section . . ., ” Id. ¶ 31 (Kiwi); or a hyperlink or button labelled “baggage fees, ” which would lead
the customer indirectly to a page listing individual carriers' various fees (including for carry-on bags). Id. ¶ 26 (CheapOAir). The OTAs also generally stated that the booking was subject to the OTAs' own “Terms and Conditions” (not Spirit's), with a hyperlink to those terms. See Id. ¶ 33 (CheapOAir); Id. ¶ 38 (CheapTickets); Id. ¶ 39 (Kiwi); Id. ¶ 40 (Expedia); Id. ¶ 41 (Travelocity). In turn, the OTAs' terms and conditions each mentioned that bookings were subject to the conditions of the airline or “supplier.” Id. ¶¶ 35, 37, 40-41.
Since at least 2012, Spirit maintained a “Contract of Carriage” document (“COCD”) on its website - a document Spirit invokes here. Id. ¶ 44. The COCD has a section called “Carry-On Baggage.” From January 2012 through April 2014, that section of the COCD stated that one “carry-on bag is permitted in the aircraft cabin” and that customers could also bring one personal item on board. Decl. of Tracy Rich (“Rich Decl.”), Ex. 3, § 6.1, ECF No. 129-6. It said that fees would apply for personal items exceeding the permitted dimensions, but it did not specifically mention fees for carry-ons. Id.[6] Later - beginning in April 2014 - the COCD added language that one
“carry-on bag is permitted in the aircraft cabin for a charge.” Rich Decl., Ex. 4, § 6.1, ECF No. 129-7 (emphasis added).
It is undisputed that Spirit did not provide a copy of its COCD to consumers before they purchased a ticket via an OTA. Though Spirit's own website contained a link to its COCD, none of the OTAs included Spirit's COCD or even a hyperlink thereto. Pl. 56.1 ¶ 63; Def. Resp. to Pl. 56.1 ¶ 64. Since at least May 3, 2017 (near the very end of the putative class period), Spirit has also ”maintained a copy of its COCD available for public inspection at each of its airport [sic]” and ”all locations where its tickets are sold in the United States; and upon request provided a copy of its COCD for no charge by mail or delivery service.” Def. 56.1 ¶ 44.[7]
II. Procedural Background
Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against Spirit in August 2017. ECF No. 1. They filed their second amended complaint -the operative complaint here - in May 2018, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud. ECF No. 31. On November 26, 2018, the assigned judge dismissed Plaintiffs'
claims in their entirety. See Cox v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., 340 F.Supp.3d 154, 156 (E.D.N.Y. 2018), vacated and remanded, 786 Fed.Appx. 283 (2d Cir. 2019). As relevant here, the district court held that the Airline Deregulation Act (“ADA”), 49 U.S.C. Section 41713(b)(1), preempted Plaintiffs' breach-of-contract claim. Cox v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., 340 F.Supp.3d at 157-59. Plaintiffs appealed, pursuing only the breach-of-contract claim. Cox v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., 786 Fed.Appx. at 284.
The Second Circuit vacated the decision on the breach-of-contract claim (but not the other claims) and remanded. Id. It held that the ADA did not preempt Plaintiffs' contract claim and explained that “[w]hether, in light of state-law principles of contract interpretation, the carriage of Plaintiffs' carry-on items was in fact within the scope of Spirit's obligations, is a question for the district court to consider in the first instance.” Id. at 285. On that question, the Court of Appeals “conclude[d] only that, in light of what appear to be ambiguities in the contract that Plaintiffs allege Spirit to have breached, and our conclusion that ADA preemption does not apply, Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim was not dismissible on the pleadings.” Id. at 285-86. Citing prior Circuit precedent, the panel held that the “price” term in Spirit's contract with its passengers was “an ambiguous term” - specifically as to whether the price included the right to carry
on one or more items. Id. at 286 (citing Law Debenture Tr. Co. of N.Y. v. Maverick Tube Corp., 595 F.3d 458, 466 (2d Cir. 2010)).
III. Spirit's Motion for Summary Judgment
A. Legal Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate if the record demonstrates that“there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed R. Civ. P. 56(a). “A fact is material for these purposes if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. An issue of fact is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Lovejoy-Wilson v. NOCO Motor Fuel, Inc., 263 F.3d 208, 212 (2d Cir. 2001).[8]
The moving party has the burden of demonstrating the absence of a dispute of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986). If the movant carries its burden, “the nonmoving party must come forward with admissible evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact for trial in order to avoid summary judgment.” Jaramillo v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 536 F.3d 140, 145 (2d Cir. 2008). Absent such
evidence, the Court will grant summary judgment. The entry of summary judgment is appropriate “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
B. Discussion
Spirit's summary judgment motion raises two primary questions: (1) whether the “price” term of the contract included carry-on bags, as a matter of New...
To continue reading
Request your trial