Jimenez–ruiz v. Spirit Airlines Inc.

• Decision Date: 16 June 2011
• Docket Number: Civil No. 10–2087 (GAG).
• Citation: 794 F.Supp.2d 344
• Parties: Jaime JIMENEZ–RUIZ, Plaintiff,v.SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

794 F.Supp.2d 344

Jaime JIMENEZ–RUIZ, Plaintiff,

v.SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC., et al., Defendants.

Civil No. 10–2087 (GAG).

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

June 16, 2011.

Richard Schell–Asad, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff.Diego A. Ramos, Carlos J. Ruiz–Irizarry, Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez, P.S.C., San Juan, PR, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

GUSTAVO A. GELPÍ, District Judge.

Plaintiff Jaime Jimenez–Ruiz (“Plaintiff” or “Jimenez”) filed a complaint against Spirit Airlines, Inc. (“Spirit” or “Defendant”) invoking the court's diversity jurisdiction. The complaint alleges that Jimenez suffered bodily injuries while disembarking an aircraft owned and operated by Spirit. Plaintiff seeks damages under Puerto Rico's general tort law statute for Spirit's negligence.

Presently before the court is Spirit's motion to dismiss (Docket No. 12). Spirit moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(7) on grounds of federal preemption and failure to join indispensable parties. Plaintiff opposed the motion (Docket No. 17). By leave of the court, Spirit filed a reply to Plaintiff's opposition motion (Docket No. 20). After reviewing these submissions and the pertinent law, the court DENIES Defendant's motion to dismiss at Docket No. 12.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff is a resident of San German, Puerto Rico. Defendant Spirit Airlines, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Florida, is a domestic air carrier duly certified by the United States Department of Transportation to transport persons, baggage, cargo and mail over certain domestic and international routes approved and supervised by the Federal Aviation Administration. ( See Docket No. 4 at 5 ¶ 1b.) Spirit operated the jet aircraft used for the flight alleged in the present complaint between Fort Lauderdale–Hollywood International Airport in Fort Lauderdale, Florida (“FLL”) and Rafael Hernandez International Airport in Aguadilla, Puerto Rico (“BQN”). (See Docket No. 4 at 5 ¶ 1d.) Flight NK 195 (“NK 195”) was scheduled to depart FLL on January 4, 2010 at 23:25 EST, and arrive at BQN at 2:40 AST on January 5, 2010. ( See Docket No. 4 at 6 ¶ 1 e.) NK 195 arrived at BQN sometime between 3:30 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. Jimenez was a passenger on board flight NK 195. ( See Docket No. 4 at 6 ¶ 1f.)

The terminal building at BQN does not have jet bridges. Aircraft passengers arriving at BQN disembark by mobile ramp stairs. Plaintiff alleges that he slipped and fell on the second to last step of a mobile ramp while deplaning NK 195, which resulted in injuries to his chest, hands, arms, legs and feet. He avers that Spirit acted negligently by failing to (1) dry the steps of the mobile ramp, (2) apply anti-slip tape to the steps, (3) illuminate the area, and (4) warn passengers about the mobile ramp's dangerous conditions. Plaintiff further contends that Spirit breached its duty to exercise reasonable care by allowing passengers to disembark NK 195 under the dangerous conditions.

Plaintiff filed the instant complaint against Spirit on November 5, 2010 (Docket No. 1) seeking damages for negligence under Puerto Rico's general tort law statute, Article 1802 of the Civil Code of Puerto Rico (“Article 1802”), P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5141. On March 4, 2011, Spirit filed a motion to dismiss (Docket No. 12) on the grounds that Plaintiff's claims are preempted by federal law, and that Plaintiff failed to join indispensable parties pursuant to Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff responded with a motion in opposition (Docket No. 17) and Spirit replied (Docket No. 20).

II. Discussion

A. Failure to State a Claim

“The general rules of pleading require a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Gargano v. Liberty Intern. Underwriters, Inc., 572 F.3d 45, 48 (1st Cir.2009) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). “This short and plain statement need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’ ” Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)).

Under Rule 12(b)(6), a defendant may move to dismiss an action against him for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. The court must decide whether the complaint alleges enough facts to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. In so doing, the court accepts as true all well-pleaded facts and draws all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Parker v. Hurley, 514 F.3d 87, 90 (1st Cir.2008). However, “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not ‘show[n]’—‘that the pleader is entitled to relief.’ ” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)).

1. Preemption

Defendant contends that Plaintiff's Puerto Rico tort law claims are preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act (“ADA”), 49 U.S.C. §§ 40101 et seq. The ADA's express preemption clause prohibits a state from enacting or enforcing “a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier.” 49 U.S.C. § 41713(b)(1). The term “related to” is to be interpreted to preempt state law claims “having a connection with, or reference to, airline rates, routes, or services.” American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219, 223, 115 S.Ct. 817, 130 L.Ed.2d 715 (1995) (quoting Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 384, 112 S.Ct. 2031, 119 L.Ed.2d 157 (1992)) (internal quotations marks omitted). However, not all claims are subject to preemption as some state actions may affect airline prices, routes, or services in “too tenuous, remote, or peripheral a manner ... to have a pre-emptive effect.” Morales, 504 U.S. at 390, 112 S.Ct. 2031 (citations omitted).

Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's personal injury claims arguing they relate to a “service” provided by Spirit, and are therefore preempted. Defendant argues that Plaintiff's claims would impose additional economic burdens on its disembarking “services,” ¹ as well as additional warning requirements to those already mandated by federal law. ( See Docket No. 12–1 at 3.) Plaintiff counters that his claims are not preempted because the ADA does not preempt state laws claims for damages as a result of negligent acts or omissions.

Thus, the issues addressed by the parties turns on “the meaning of the term ‘service’ in the portion of the [ADA] that pre-empts any state law ‘related to price, route, or service of an air carrier.’ ” Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Duncan, 531 U.S. 1058, 1058, 121 S.Ct. 650, 148 L.Ed.2d 571 (2000) (O'Connor, J., dissenting from a denial of a petition for writ of certiorari) (citing 49 U.S.C. § 41713(b)(1)). Particularly, whether Plaintiff's personal injury state law claims for negligence “relate to” airline “services.”

The ADA does not define the term “service,” nor has the Supreme Court interpreted it.² While the First Circuit has not directly addressed the meaning of the term,³ other Courts of Appeals “have taken directly conflicting positions” on the statutory interpretation. DeTerra v. America West Airlines, Inc., 226 F.Supp.2d 274, 277 (D.Mass.2002); see also Northwest Airlines, 531 U.S. at 1058, 121 S.Ct. 650. Because no controlling precedent has issued from the Supreme Court or the First Circuit, the court looks to other circuits for guidance.

The Ninth Circuit has held that the term “service” refers “to the prices, schedules, origins and destinations of the point-to-point transportation of passengers, cargo, or mail,” but not the “provision of in-flight beverages, personal assistance to passengers, the handling of luggage, and similar amenities.” Duncan v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 208 F.3d 1112, 1114–15 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting Charas v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 160 F.3d 1259, 1261 (9th Cir.1998)) (internal quotation marks omitted). This interpretation has been accepted by the Third Circuit. Taj Mahal Travel, Inc. v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 164 F.3d 186, 194 (3d Cir.1998).

However, the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits have

adopted a much broader definition. According to the Fifth Circuit, “ticketing, boarding procedures, provision of food and drink, and baggage handling, in addition to the transportation itself,” are part of airline “services.” Hodges v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 44 F.3d 334, 336 (5th Cir.1995). The Seventh Circuit echoes this interpretation. See Travel All Over the World v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 73 F.3d 1423, 1433 (7th Cir.1996). The Fourth Circuit has held that “[u]ndoubtedly, boarding procedures are a service rendered by an airline.” Smith v. Comair, Inc., 134 F.3d 254, 259 (4th Cir.1998). The Eleventh Circuit has also adopted the Fifth Circuit's definition of “services” to include boarding procedures and baggage handling. See Koutsouradis v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 427 F.3d 1339, 1343 (11th Cir.2005). The Second Circuit rejected a narrow interpretation, noting that “a majority of the circuits have held that the term refers to the provision or anticipated provision of labor from the airline to its passengers and encompasses matters such as boarding procedures ... [as well...