Glass v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.

• Decision Date: 28 June 2011
• Docket Number: No. 09–2206.,09–2206.
• Citation: 798 F.Supp.2d 902
• Parties: Brenda GLASS, Plaintiff, v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC.; Delta Airlines, Inc.; Pinnacle Airlines, Inc.; Pinnacle Airlines Corp.; Air Serv Corp.; and Memphis–Shelby County Airport Authority, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee

798 F.Supp.2d 902

Brenda GLASS, Plaintiff,

v.NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC.; Delta Airlines, Inc.; Pinnacle Airlines, Inc.; Pinnacle Airlines Corp.; Air Serv Corp.; and Memphis–Shelby County Airport Authority, Defendants.

No. 09–2206.

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division.

June 28, 2011.

John M. Zuck, Thomas R. Greer, Bailey and Benfield, PLLC, Memphis, TN, for Plaintiff.

David I. Feigelson, Jonathan R. Stephens, Andrea L. Murff, Petkoff and Feigelson, Leland M. McNabb, Courtney S. Vest, Pam Warnock Blair, McNabb Bragorgos & Burgess, PLLC, Memphis, TN, for Defendants.

ORDER ON MOTIONS

SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR., District Judge.

Plaintiff Brenda Glass (“Plaintiff”) originally brought claims for negligence, negligence per se, and breach of contract against Defendants Northwest Airlines, Inc. (“Northwest”), Pinnacle Airlines, Inc. (“Pinnacle”), and Air Serv Corporation (“Air Serv” and, collectively, “Defendants”). ( See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 3–8, 23–32, ECF No. 104.) Defendants filed separately for summary judgment. ( See Def. Air Serv Corp.'s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 135; Def. Northwest Airlines, Inc.'s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 157; Def. Pinnacle Airlines, Inc.'s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 158.)

In its January 4, 2011 Order, 761 F.Supp.2d 734 (W.D.Tenn.2011), on Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (“Order”), the Court granted Northwest's motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims for negligence and negligence per se, but denied that motion on her breach of contract claim. ( See Order on Defs.' Mots. for Summ. J. 36, ECF No. 216.) The Court granted Pinnacle's and Air Serv's motions for summary judgment on all claims against them. ( Id.)

Before the Court are two motions seeking revision of the Court's Order. ( See Def. Northwest Airlines, Inc.'s Mot. to Alter or Amend J., ECF No. 219; Pl.'s Mot. to Reconsider, ECF No. 221.) The first is Northwest's January 21, 2011 motion to alter or amend (“Northwest's Motion”). ( See Def. Northwest Airlines, Inc.'s Mot. to Alter or Amend J.) Plaintiff responded in opposition on February 2, 2011. ( See Pl.'s Resp. in Opp'n to Northwest Airlines, Inc.'s Mot. to Alter or Amend J., ECF No. 222.) (“Pl.'s Resp.”) The second is Plaintiff's January 28, 2011 motion to reconsider (“Plaintiff's Motion”). ( See Pl.'s Mot. to Reconsider, ECF No. 221.) Northwest, Pinnacle, and Air Serv separately responded in opposition on February 11, 2011. ( See Def. Northwest Airlines, Inc.'s Resp. in Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. to Reconsider, ECF No. 225 (“Northwest's Resp.”); Def. Air Serv Corporation's Resp. in Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. to Reconsider, ECF No. 226 (“Air Serv's Resp.”); Def. Pinnacle Airlines, Inc.'s Resp. in Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. to Reconsider, ECF No. 227 (“Pinnacle's Resp.”).) For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Northwest's Motion and DENIES Plaintiff's Motion.

I. Background

Plaintiff's claims arise from an incident at Memphis International Airport (the “Airport”) on September 9, 2008, in which her father, Clarence Glass (“Glass”), fell down an escalator, suffering serious injuries that allegedly caused his death. ( See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 10–25.) The Court summarized the relevant facts, and the parties' disagreements about those facts, in its January 4, 2011 Order. ( See Order, 761 F.Supp.2d at 739–41.) The Court stated:

Before his fall, Glass had traveled from Michigan to Memphis on an airline ticket purchased for him by Plaintiff, his daughter. When she booked the ticket for her father's flight with Northwest, Plaintiff requested wheelchair assistance for him. Northwest provides that service to its passengers for no additional fee.

At the time of the accident, Northwest had contracted with Air Serv for passenger wheelchair services at the Airport. Under their contract (the “Northwest–Air Serv Contract”), a “planned” request was a wheelchair request made by a passenger before the passenger's arrival at the Airport. When Air Serv received a planned request, it was required to send a wheelchair to the requesting passenger's gate within thirty minutes of “aircraft block time.”

The parties dispute how Northwest informed Air Serv of planned requests. Northwest states that it sent planned requests to Air Serv via “telex” printer before passengers' arrival. Plaintiff disputes this fact to the extent it implies that telex requests were the only way Northwest relayed planned requests to Air Serv. Plaintiff submits a deposition from Air Serv dispatcher Toni Bland (“Bland”), in which she states that, in addition to telex requests, Northwest sent Air Serv a printed list of planned requests before each “bank” of flights. That list included the anticipated number of wheelchairs needed for each flight in the bank, but did not include specific information about which passengers requested the wheelchairs.

Under the Northwest–Air Serv Contract, wheelchair requests not made in advance were called “unplanned” requests. To make unplanned requests, Northwest employees working at the Airport's gates telephoned an Air Serv dispatcher when an arriving passenger requested a wheelchair. Under the Northwest–Air Serv Contract, Air Serv had to provide a wheelchair within thirty minutes of an “unplanned” request.

On the day of Glass' fall, Air Serv did not receive a telex request from Northwest requesting a wheelchair for him. When Glass' flight arrived, Parth Patel (“Patel”) was working as Pinnacle's gate agent. Before Glass disembarked from the aircraft, Patel called the Air Serv dispatcher to request two wheelchairs for passengers arriving on Glass' flight.

Glass was the first passenger off his Northwest flight, which was operated by Pinnacle. Using his walker to exit the aircraft, Glass asked Patel for a wheelchair when he entered the gate area. At that time, Patel called Air Serv a second time and requested a wheelchair for Glass. The Air Serv dispatcher told Patel that a wheelchair was in route to the gate, and Patel asked Glass to have a seat in the gate area and wait for the wheelchair to arrive. Rather than take a seat, however, Glass waited at the gate area for several minutes and left.

There is some dispute as to the exact amount of time that elapsed before Glass left the gate area. Air Serv states that Glass waited in the gate area for only five minutes before leaving. In response to Air Serv, Plaintiff contends that Glass waited up to ten minutes. Plaintiff states that, after asking Patel for a wheelchair when he entered the gate area, Glass waited nearby for several minutes before he approached a customer service counter, where Patel called Air Serv a third time. Plaintiff relies on Patel's deposition, in which he states that Glass was “in [the] gate area” for five or six minutes and “at customer service” for three to four minutes.

Northwest and Pinnacle state that Glass waited in the gate area for only five minutes. In response, Plaintiff again contends that Glass was in the gate area for five to six minutes, not five minutes, relying on Patel's deposition testimony. Northwest also states that, after leaving the gate area, Glass walked to the Pinnacle customer service counter and remained there for three to four minutes, which Plaintiff does not dispute. Plaintiff and Northwest agree that, at the customer service counter, Patel called Air Serv a third time and was again told that a wheelchair was on its way. Regardless of the specific time Glass waited and whether he waited in the gate area or at the customer service counter, the parties agree that Glass eventually left the area. They also agree that, as he was leaving, Patel again told him that a wheelchair was on its way.

After leaving the gate area, Glass fell backwards down an escalator while attempting to ascend it using his walker. A sign on the escalator warned against using “baby buggies and like items” on the escalator, and a public elevator was located nearby. Plaintiff alleges that Glass eventually died from his injuries.

( Id. at 739–41 (internal citations and footnotes omitted).)

II. Standard of Review ¹

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), a court may revise any order before it issues an entry of judgment adjudicating all of the claims and all of the parties' rights and liabilities. Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); see also Rodriguez v. Tenn. Laborers Health & Welfare Fund, 89 Fed.Appx. 949, 959 (6th Cir.2004) (“District courts have authority both under common law and Rule 54(b) to reconsider interlocutory orders and to reopen any part of a case before entry of final judgment.”) (citation omitted). “Rule 54(b), however, does not expressly provide for ... motions by parties and does not prescribe any standards or bases for revisions of prior decisions.” Lumpkin v. Farmers Grp., Inc., No. 05–2868 Ma/V, 2007 WL 6996777, at *3 (W.D.Tenn. July 6, 2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Courts generally revise interlocutory orders only “whe[re] there is (1) an intervening change of controlling law; (2) new evidence available; or (3) a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” ² Louisville/Jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov't v. Hotels.com, L.P., 590 F.3d 381, 389 (6th Cir.2009) (quoting Rodriguez, 89 Fed.Appx. at 959). Motions to revise “may not be used to relitigate old matters.” In re Regions Morgan Keegan Secs., Derivative, and ERISA Litig., Nos. 07–2784, MDL 2009, 2010 WL 5464792, at *1 (W.D.Tenn. Dec. 30, 2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

III. Northwest's Motion

Plaintiff seeks damages arising from Glass' death, including the full pecuniary value of his life, his physical and emotional pain and suffering, his medical expenses, his loss of enjoyment of life, and his funeral expenses. ( See Compl. ¶ 32.) Northwest argues that Plaintiff has failed to show that the damages she seeks are recoverable in an action for breach of contract and that, in denying its motion for summary judgment on her breach of contract claim without addressing damages, the Court committed a...