In re Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust Litig.

• Decision Date: 28 October 2016
• Docket Number: MDL Docket No. 2656,Misc. No. 15-1404 (CKK)
• Citation: In re Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust Litig., 221 F.Supp.3d 46 (D. D.C. 2016)
• Parties: IN RE DOMESTIC AIRLINE TRAVEL ANTITRUST LITIGATION This Document Relates To: All Cases
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

221 F.Supp.3d 46

IN RE DOMESTIC AIRLINE TRAVEL ANTITRUST LITIGATION

This Document Relates To: All Cases

MDL Docket No. 2656

Misc. No. 15-1404 (CKK)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed October 28, 2016

MEMORANDUM OPINION

COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presently before the Court is Defendants' [106]Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).Defendants allege that the Consolidated Amended Complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiffs failed to plead facts sufficient to demonstrate that Plaintiffs suffered injury-in-fact and because Plaintiffs failed to plead factual allegations of a plausible price-fixing conspiracy in violation of federal antitrust laws.Upon consideration of the pleadings,¹ the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court DENIES Defendants' [106]Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint for the reasons described herein.

I.BACKGROUND

A.Procedural Background

The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation("the Panel") consolidated 23 actions pending in seven districts involving claims that four major airlines fixed prices for domestic airline tickets by keeping capacity artificially low.The Panel transferred these consolidated actions to this Court on October 13, 2015.The Panel subsequently transferred additional related actions to be consolidated into the instant litigation.There are presently a total of 105 cases consolidated in this action.

On October 30, 2015, the Court entered an Initial Practice and Procedure Order Upon Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, in which the Court set out a general outline of how it intends to proceed in this matter.Initial Practice & Procedure Order Upon Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, ECF No.[4].On February 4, 2016, the Court entered an Order Appointing Plaintiffs' Interim Class Counsel and, on February 26, 2016, set a schedule for Plaintiffs to file their Consolidated Amended Complaint and for Defendants to file any responsive pleadings or motions.Order Appointing Pls.'Interim Class Counsel(Feb. 4, 2016), ECF No. [76]; Order (Feb. 26, 2016), ECF No. [83].On March 24, 2016, at the parties' joint request, the Court held a telephonic conference call on the record to discuss Plaintiffs' request to lift the discovery stay for the limited purpose of obtaining the material that Defendants provided to the Government in response to the Government's subpoenas.On March 30, 2016, the Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Plaintiffs' request to lift the discovery stay.Mem. Op. & Order (Mar. 30, 2016), ECF No. [96].On March 25, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint ("Complaint").On May 11, 2016, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is now fully briefed.

B.Factual Background

For the purposes of the motion before the Court, the Court accepts as true the allegations in the Complaint.See generally Compl., ECF No. [91].The Court does "not accept as true, however, the plaintiff's legal conclusions or inferences that are unsupported by the facts alleged."Ralls Corp. v. Comm. on Foreign Inv. in United States. , 758 F.3d 296, 315(D.C. Cir.2014).The Court recites the principal facts pertaining to the issues raised in the pending motion relying on the Complaint and undisputed and/or uncontroverted facts.

Defendants, American Airlines, Inc.("American"), Delta Air Lines, Inc.("Delta"), Southwest Airlines Co.("Southwest"), and United Airlines, Inc.("United"), are the four largest commercial air passenger carriers in the United States.Compl.¶¶ 1, 23-26.In addition to the four named Defendants, Plaintiffs allege that U.S. Airways prior to its merger with American, Air Canada, and the International Air Transport Association("IATA") willingly conspired with Defendants to unlawfully restrain trade.Id.¶ 27.

Plaintiffs are purchasers of air passenger transportation for domestic travel directly from Defendants or their predecessors and/or through websites including Travelocity.com, Orbitz.com, Priceline.com, Expedia.com, and Flyfar.ca. Id.¶¶ 11-22.Plaintiffs named in the Complaint include individuals who are residents of various states and the District of Columbia, a non-profit corporation, and a corporation.Plaintiffs seek classwide recovery, defining the putative class, with certain exceptions, as: "All persons and entities that purchased air passenger transportation services for flights within the United States and its territories and the District of Columbia from Defendants or any predecessor, subsidiary or affiliate thereof, at any time between July 1, 2011 and the present."Id.¶ 142.Plaintiffs assert that they do not know the exact number of members in the putative class because such information is in control of Defendants but Plaintiffs believe that the number of Class members is in the millions and that Class members "are sufficiently numerous and geographically dispersed throughout the United States so that joinder of all Class members is impracticable."Id.¶ 143.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants colluded to limit capacity on their respective airlines in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for air passenger transportation services within the United States, its territories, and the District of Columbia in violation of Sections 1and3 of the Sherman Antitrust Act(15 U.S.C. §§ 1,3 ), and that Plaintiffs suffered pecuniary injury by paying artificially inflated ticket prices as a result of this purported antitrust violation.Id.¶¶ 1, 11-22.Plaintiffs allege that the conspiracy commenced in the first quarter of 2009 and continues until the present, and seek to recover treble damages for the period of July 1, 2011, to the present ("Class Period").Id.¶ 1.Defendants now move the Court to dismiss all of Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

II.LEGAL STANDARD

A.Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)

To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over its claim.Moms Against Mercury v. FDA , 483 F.3d 824, 828(D.C. Cir.2007).In determining whether there is jurisdiction, the Court may "consider the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record, or the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts."Coal. for Underground Expansion v. Mineta , 333 F.3d 193, 198(D.C. Cir.2003)(citations omitted)."At the motion to dismiss stage, counseled complaints, as well as pro se complaints, are to be construed with sufficient liberality to afford all possible inferences favorable to the pleader on allegations of fact."Settles v. U.S. Parole Comm'n , 429 F.3d 1098, 1106(D.C. Cir.2005)."Although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in the complaint when reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)," the factual allegations in the complaint "will bear closer scrutiny in resolving a 12(b)(1) motion than in resolving a 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim."Wright v. Foreign Serv. Grievance Bd. , 503 F.Supp.2d 163, 170(D.D.C.2007)(citations omitted).

B.Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a party may move to dismiss a complaint on the grounds that it "fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a complaint contain " ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’ "Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929(2007)(quotingConley v. Gibson , 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80(1957) );accordErickson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 93, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081(2007)(per curiam)."[A] complaint [does not] suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’ "Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868(2009)(quotingTwombly , 550 U.S. at 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ).Rather, a complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations that, if accepted as true, "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."Twombly , 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955."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."Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868(2009).

In evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and must accept as true all reasonable factual inferences drawn from well-pleaded factual allegations.In re United Mine Workers of Am. Empl. Benefit Plans Litig. , 854 F.Supp. 914, 915(D.D.C.1994).Further, in deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court may consider "the facts alleged in the complaint, documents attached as exhibits or incorporated by reference in the complaint," or "documents upon which the plaintiff's complaint necessarily relies even if the document is produced not by the plaintiff in the complaint but by the defendant in a motion to dismiss."

Ward v. D.C. Dep't of Youth Rehab. Servs. , 768 F.Supp.2d 117, 119(D.D.C.2011)(citations omitted).

III.DISCUSSION

A.Plaintiffs Established Standing Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution

Pursuant to Article III of the Constitution, Defendants move to dismiss this action on the basis that this Court has no jurisdiction because Plaintiffs lack standing."Article III...