Schultz v. Am. Airlines, Inc.

Decision Date02 January 2020
Docket NumberCASE NO. 18-80633-CIV-ALTMAN/Brannon
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
Parties Margaret SCHULTZ, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant.

Mason Kyle Kerns, Jeremy Harris Block, Mason Kerns Law, P.A., Miami, FL, Robert E. Burkett, Jr., Burkett Law Office, Fort Myers, FL, for Plaintiff.

Elizabeth Marks, Pro Hac Vice, James E. Brandt, Pro Hac Vice, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY, Michael E. Bern, Pro Hac Vice, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC, Humberto H. Ocariz, Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Miami, FL, for Defendant.

ORDER 1

ROY K. ALTMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on American Airlines’ ("AA") Sealed Motion for Summary Judgment ("MSJ") [ECF No. 91]. The Plaintiff, Margaret Schultz ("Schultz"), filed a Response ("MSJ Response") [ECF No. 104], and the matter ripened when AA filed its Reply ("MSJ Reply"). Both parties filed statements of undisputed material facts, which AA has combined into a single document. See Chart Summary of Parties’ Positions Regarding Summary Judgment Facts ("Chart Summary") [ECF No. 112].2

BACKGROUND

On May 14, 2018, Schultz filed a putative class action against AA [ECF No. 1]. The operative complaint, now in its third iteration ("TAC") [ECF No. 59], asserts just a single breach of contract claim. In denying AA's Motion to Dismiss the TAC [ECF No. 38], the Court expressed grave reservations about whether Schultz's contract claim could survive a motion for summary judgment. See July 9, 2019 Order [ECF No. 79]. Specifically, the Court noted that, even taking the TAC's allegations as true, those allegations did not support Schultz's view that she had entered into a valid contract with AA to purchase a ticket for $197. Id. at 9. Instead, those allegations supported the inference that the ticket price Schultz says she saw was nothing more than "an offer to negotiate"—in other words, an advertisement. Id.

At a status conference on July 24, 2019, the Court granted the parties’ request to conduct some additional discovery on "the operation of AA's pricing matrix, the number of consumers who purchased tickets for Schultz's flight while she was navigating through the order screens, whether Schultz's chosen seat could be reserved or otherwise held before she clicked ‘pay now,’ and the specific information AA conveyed to Schultz before she clicked ‘pay now.’ " Id. After some limited discovery on these issues, AA filed its Motion for Summary Judgment.

THE FACTS3
I. AA's Online Ticketing System

AA is one of the largest airlines in the world. Chart Summary ¶ 1. At any given time, there are tens of thousands of people navigating AA's website (AA.com) in search of flights. Id. ¶ 6. Schultz, in fact, has purchased hundreds of tickets "from American" and "thousands of airplane tickets" for herself or others. Id. ¶ 21.

When setting prices for its various flight classes—these classes are often categorized by their alphabetical designations, such as V class, L class, M class, or Y class—an AA "Pricing team" creates different fare rules for each class. Id. ¶ 8. AA's proprietary algorithm, in turn, sets a limit on the number of tickets in each class that can be sold for any given flight. Id. ¶ 9. This algorithm analyzes the interplay between several quantitative factors—e.g., expected demand, seat availability, historical trends, and competitor flights, among others—and then determines the specific fare for every ticket. Id. Schultz concedes that there are only a certain number of seats on each flight—and she admits that, for each flight, there are only a limited number of fares within each fare class. Id. ¶ 41.

In 2017, when Schultz purchased the ticket at issue here, customers looking to book a domestic flight on AA.com had to proceed through several webpages, including: (1) the "Departure and Destination" homepage, where the customer would enter his or her flight preference information; (2) the "Choose Flights" page, where the customer would select a flight and fare class; (3) the "Passengers" page, where the customer would enter the traveling passenger's personal information; (4) the self-explanatory "Choose Your Seat" page; (5) the "Review and Pay" page, where the customer would input his or her payment information;4 and (6) the "Finish" page. Id. ¶ 11.

Schultz contends that, once a customer clicked "Pay Now" on the "Review and Pay" page—which would happen before the customer reached the "Finish" page—that customer had entered into a binding contract with AA. Id. ("Under the Plaintiff's theory, a contract is consummated before a customer reaches the ‘Finish’ page."). AA counters that, even after the customer clicked "Pay Now," that customer would still have to navigate the following additional steps before AA would issue that customer a valid ticket: (1) AA would verify that the customer had sufficient funds; (2) AA would charge the customer's credit card (or other payment method); and (3) AA would confirm that the passenger was cleared to fly by the relevant regulatory authorities. Id. ¶ 16.

II. Schultz's Flight

Schultz testified that, on May 25, 2017, at approximately 7:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time ("EST"), she saw a flight listed on AA's website for $197. Id. ¶ 33. But, according to Schultz, when she "clicked" on the corresponding link to pay—which she did only after proceeding through a series of screens that prompted her to enter her passenger and credit card information—the price of the ticket had inexplicably increased to $297. See TAC ¶ 71 n.17. Despite her frustration, at 7:55 p.m. EST—some 55 minutes after she started—Schultz bought a ticket on that same flight for $379, which apparently included all applicable taxes and fees. See MSJ Exhibit 7 (Schultz's booking information) [ECF No. 91-9].5

Although Schultz attached to her TAC what she calls "substantively identical" printouts of the pages she says she encountered on her journey to the "Pay Now" button, she did not include a copy of the page she allegedly saw after she clicked "Pay Now." Instead, Schultz avers that, after she clicked "Pay Now," AA's website told her that her request "cannot be processed." Chart Summary ¶ 62. Notably, AA collected no money from Schultz, issued her no ticket, and never directed her to the "Finish" page. Id. ¶¶ 34-36. Nor did Schultz adduce any evidence that, after she clicked "Pay Now," AA attempted in some way to charge her credit card.

AA, for its part, has introduced a summary exhibit ("Compilation Chart") [ECF No. 91-7],6 which establishes that, on May 25, 2017, fourteen people—including Schultz—purchased tickets for the flight in question. Id. ¶ 42. Of these, five successfully booked a V class fare—that is, a ticket in the $197 range. Id. ¶ 43. But, according to AA's records, the last available V class fare for Schultz's flight was sold no later than 3:39 p.m. EST—more than three hours and twenty minutes before Schultz says she saw a ticket at that price on AA.com. Id. ¶ 45. In other words, after 3:39 p.m., AA's records show that the only remaining seats on Schultz's chosen flight cost more than $197. Id. ¶ 46. Nevertheless, Schultz has repeatedly insisted, under oath, that she "knows for a fact" that she saw a ticket at that price at 7:00 p.m. Id. ¶ 33.

THE LAW

Summary judgment is appropriate where there is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) ; FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). In determining whether to grant summary judgment, the Court must consider "particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). "By its very terms, this standard provides that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (emphasis in original). An issue of fact is "material" if it might affect the outcome of the case under the governing law. Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. A dispute about a material fact is "genuine" if the evidence could lead a reasonable factfinder to rule for the non-moving party. Id.

At summary judgment, the moving party has the burden of proving the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, and all factual inferences are drawn in favor of the non-moving party. See e.g., Allen v. Tyson Foods Inc. , 121 F.3d 642, 646 (11th Cir. 1997). Once the moving party satisfies its initial burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to come forward with evidence that a genuine issue of material fact precludes summary judgment. See Bailey v. Allgas, Inc. , 284 F.3d 1237, 1243 (11th Cir. 2002) ; FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e). "If reasonable minds could differ on the inferences arising from undisputed facts, then a court should deny summary judgment." Miranda v. B & B Cash Grocery Store, Inc. , 975 F.2d 1518, 1534 (11th Cir. 1992).

Notably, assessments of credibility—no less than the weighing of evidence—are fact questions not susceptible of disposition at summary judgment. Strickland v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co. , 692 F.3d 1151, 1154 (11th Cir. 2012). The Court must analyze the record as a whole—and not just the evidence the parties have singled out for consideration. See Clinkscales v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. , 831 F.2d 1565, 1570 (11th Cir. 1987). If there are any genuine issues of material fact, the Court must deny summary judgment and proceed to trial. Whelan v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. , No. 1:12-CV-22481, 2013 WL 5583970, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 14, 2013) (citing Envtl. Def. Fund v. Marsh , 651 F.2d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Fernandez v. Hotwire Commc'ns
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • September 30, 2022
    ... ... aren't based on the evidence. See, ... e.g. , Wills v. Walmart Assocs., Inc. , 2022 WL ... 845183, at *7 n.6 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 22, 2022) (Altman, J.) ... for summary judgment.”); Schultz v. Am. Airlines, ... Inc. , 449 F.Supp.3d 1301, 1311 (S.D. Fla. 2020) (Altman, ... J.), ... ...
  • Hernandez v. Palm Beach Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • September 29, 2021
    ... ... no genuine issue of material ' ... fact." Anderson v. liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 ... U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). An issue of fact is ... "material" if it "might ... defending against a summary judgment motion); Schult v ... Am. Airlines, Inc., 449 F.Supp.3d 1301, 24 24 1317 (S.D ... Fla. 2020) (Altman, J.) ("[A] plaintiffs ... ...
  • Coleman v. Burger King Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • August 25, 2023
    ... ... element.” Rive// v. Private Health Care Sys., ... Inc., 520 F.3d 1308, 1309-10 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting ... Twombly , 550 U.S. at 545). “The ... advertisement constitutes a binding offer.” Schultz ... v. Am ... Airlines, Inc ., 449 F.Supp.3d 1301, 1312 ... (S.D. Fla. 2020) (Altman, ... ...
  • Highland Consulting Grp. v. Minjares Soule
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • August 26, 2021
    ... THE HIGHLAND CONSULTING GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, v. JESUS FELIX MINJARES SOULE, Defendant. No. 9:19-cv-81636-ROSENBERG/REINHART ... testimony, citing as authority Schultz v. American ... Airlines, Inc. See 449 F.Supp.3d 1301, 1311 (S.D. Fla ... 2020) ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT