Shqeirat v. U.S. Airways, Group Inc.

• Citation: 515 F.Supp.2d 984
• Decision Date: 20 November 2007
• Docket Number: No. 07-1513 ADM/AJB.,07-1513 ADM/AJB.
• Parties: Ahmed Shqeirat, Mohamed Ibrahim, Didmar Faja, Omar Shahin, Mahmoud Sulaiman, and Marwan Sadeddin, Plaintiffs, U.S. Airways, Inc., and Metropolitan Airports Commission, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

Page 984

515 F.Supp.2d 984

Ahmed Shqeirat, Mohamed Ibrahim, Didmar Faja, Omar Shahin, Mahmoud Sulaiman, and Marwan Sadeddin, Plaintiffs,

U.S. Airways, Inc., and Metropolitan Airports Commission, Defendants.

No. 07-1513 ADM/AJB.

United States District Court, D. Minnesota.

November 20, 2007.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Omar T. Mohammedi, Esq., Law Firm of Omar T. Mohammedi, LLC, New York City, and Frederick J. Goetz, Esq., Goetz & Eckland P.A., Minneapolis, MN, argued on behalf of Plaintiffs.

Dane B. Jaques, Esq., Dombroff Gilmore Jaques & French, P.C., McLean, VA, and Michael C. Lindberg, Esq., Johnson & Lindberg, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, argued on behalf of U.S. Airways Group, Inc., and U.S. Airways, Inc.

Timothy R. Schupp, Esq., Flynn, Gaskins & Bennett, L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, argued on behalf of the Metropolitan Airports Commission.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

ANN D. MONTGOMERY, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

On August 21, 2007, the undersigned United States District Judge heard oral argument on Defendants U.S. Airways Group, Inc. and U.S. Airways, Inc.'s (collectively "U.S. Airways") Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 13] and Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 9], Defendant Metropolitan Airport Commission's ("MAC") Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 6], and Plaintiffs Ahmed Shqeirat ("Shqeirat"), Mohamed Ibrahim ("Ibrahim"), Didmar Faja ("Faja"), Omar Shahin ("Shahin"), Mahmoud Sulaiman ("Sulaiman"), and Marwan Sadeddin's ("Sadeddin") (collectively "Plaintiffs") Rule 56(f) Motion [Docket No. 54]. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Motion to Strike [Docket No. 96] U.S. Airways's November 13, 2007, Letter [Docket No. 94] to the Court regarding supplemental authority. For the reasons set forth below, U.S. Airways's Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part, U.S. Airways's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied without prejudice, MAC's Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part, Plaintiffs' Rule 56(f) Motion is granted, and Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike is granted.

II. BACKGROUND¹

Plaintiffs are six Imams who traveled to Minneapolis, Minnesota, in November 2006 for the North American Conference of Imams. 1 st Am. Compl. [Docket No. 5] ¶ 24. Shqeirat, Faja, Shahin, Sulaiman, and Sadeddin are Arizona residents, and Ibrahim is a California resident. Id. ¶¶ 12-17. Shqeirat and Shahin are Muslims of Jordanian-Arab origin, Ibrahim and Sulaiman are Muslims of Egyptian-Arab origin, Faja is a Muslim of Albanian origin, and Sadeddin is a Muslim of Syrian-Arab origin. Id.

On October 29, 2006, Shahin purchased tickets for round-trip air travel on U.S. Airways from Phoenix International Airport to Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Id. ¶ 25; U.S. Airways's Exs. [Docket. No. 11] 2-5.² Shahin purchased the tickets for himself, Sulaiman, Faja, Sadeddin, and Shqeirat. U.S. Airways's Exs. 2-5. On November 9, 2006, Shahin purchased an additional ticket for Ibrahim for round trip air travel on U.S. Airways from Phoenix to Minneapolis.³ Id. Ex. 6. The tickets specified that Shahin would travel from Phoenix to Minneapolis on U.S. Airways Flight 353 on November 16, 2006, and the other Plaintiffs would travel from Phoenix to Minneapolis on U.S. Airways Flight 57 on November 18, 2006. Id. Exs. 2-6. Plaintiffs all were booked to return to Phoenix on U.S. Airways Flight 300 ("Flight 300"), scheduled to depart Minneapolis at 5:45 p.m. on November 20, 2006. 1 st Am. Compl. ¶ 27. Plaintiffs' tickets were all for coach class travel. U.S. Airways's Exs. 2-6.

Shahin and the other Plaintiffs traveled to Minneapolis on November 16 and 18, 2006, respectively and attended the North American Conference of Imams. 1 st Am. Compl. ¶ 24. On November 20, 2006, Plaintiffs arrived at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport planning to return to Phoenix on U.S. Airways Flight 300. Id. ¶ 27. After checking in, Plaintiffs passed through security without incident and arrived at gate C9 at approximately 3:45 p.m. Id. ¶ 3 1. Plaintiffs conversed with each other in Arabic and English. Id. ¶ 32. In the gate area at around 4:20 p.m Ibrahim, Shahin, and Sulaiman prayed together in observance of the Maghreb early evening Muslim prayer. Id. ¶¶ 34-35. Faja, Sadeddin, and Shqeirat decided not to pray and instead watched over Plaintiffs' carry-on bags. Id. ¶ 35. Faja, Sadeddin, and Shqeirat observed an older couple intently watching the other Plaintiffs pray. Id. ¶ 36. The male in the couple made a cellular phone call while watching Ibrahim, Shahin, and Sulaiman pray. Id. ¶ 3 8. At approximately 4:40 p.m., Ibrahim, Shahin, and Sulaiman finished praying. Id. ¶ 39.

At approximately 4:55 p.m., gate attendants began boarding procedures for Flight 300. Id. ¶ 14. Shahin, who was automatically upgraded to first class based on his status as a Gold Member in U.S. Airways's frequent flyer program, sat in row one. Id. ¶ 26; U.S. Airways's Ex. 2. Subsequently, Sulaiman assisted Sadeddin, who is blind, in boarding Flight 300. 1 st Am. Compl. ¶ 42. Initially, Sadeddin sat in his pre-assigned seat in row four and Sulaiman sat in his seat in row nine. Id. ¶ 43; U.S. Airways Exs. 3-4. However, Sadeddin subsequently moved to an aisle seat in row nine near Sulaiman after another passenger agreed to switch seats so that Sulaiman could assist his blind friend. 1 st Am. Compl. ¶¶ 44-45.

After the seat switch, Sadeddin requested a seatbelt extension because his seatbelt did not fit him. Id. ¶ 46. At about this point in the sequence of events, Shahin left his first class seat, walked towards Sadeddin, and asked Sadeddin whether he would like to sit in Shahin's seat in first class. Id. ¶ 47. Sadeddin declined the offer. Id. Shahin returned to his seat in first class and requested a seatbelt extension because his seatbelt also did not fit him. Id. ¶ 48.

Meanwhile, Faja and Shqeirat sat together in their pre-assigned seats in row twenty-five, and Ibrahim sat in his pre-assigned seat in row twenty-one. Id. ¶ 50; U.S. Airways's Exs. 4-6. Shqeirat fell asleep for approximately thirty minutes after boarding. 1 st Am. Compl. ¶ 50. When Shqeirat awoke, he and Faja noticed a police vehicle next to the airplane. Id. ¶ 5 1. Two MAC police officers, and one undercover MAC officer, boarded the plane and spoke with a flight attendant in the kitchen at the rear of the aircraft. Id. ¶ 53. The officers then approached the six Plaintiffs and requested that they deplane. Id. ¶ 54. Plaintiffs obeyed the request and exited the aircraft to the jetway. Id. ¶ 58.

In the jetway, the MAC police officers ordered Plaintiffs to face the wall and place their hands above their heads to be searched and handcuffed. Id. ¶ 58. Faja alleges the police officers refused his request for a lawyer. Id. ¶ 72. In response to a police officer's question, Shqeirat confirmed that Sadeddin is completely blind. Id.¶ 59. Shqeirat asked the officer to explain the situation, but the officer responded, "I do not know. This is the airline's call and not our call." Id. ¶ 60. The police officers ordered Plaintiffs to reboard the plane and identify their carry-on luggage. Id. ¶ 61. The police officers then removed Plaintiffs and their carry-on luggage to the jetway, and the officers thoroughly searched Plaintiffs and their belongings. Id. ¶ 62-63. While handcuffed, Plaintiffs were escorted through the airport and transported in police cars to the Minneapolis Airport Police Precinct. Id. ¶ 67.

Plaintiffs were detained at the police precinct until 11:30 p.m. Id. ¶ 73. Shqeirat and Ibrahim were placed together in a small room. Id. ¶ 75. A police officer remained in the room so the two could not communicate with each other. Id. The four other Plaintiffs were held in separate cells. Id. ¶ 76. After several hours agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigations ("F.B.I.") and the Secret Service interviewed each Plaintiff separately. Id. ¶¶ 77-97. Each Plaintiff was provided with Miranda warnings before he was questioned. Id. In response to the F.B.I. agents' questions, Shqeirat stated he did nothing unusual at the airport and he did not leave his seat on the aircraft. Id. ¶¶ 79-80. Shqeirat stated that Plaintiffs were active Imams in Arizona. Id. ¶ 8 1. In response to the Secret Service agents' questions, Shqeirat stated he did not want the President of the United States to be harmed. Id. ¶ 84. The other Plaintiffs were asked similar questions and gave similar answers. Id. ¶¶ 77-97. Each Plaintiff denied having discussed Saddam Hussein and the Iraq war in the gate area or on the plane. Id. The F.B.I. agents asked Sadeddin whether he was blind because a U.S. Airways flight attendant allegedly reported she believed Sadeddin was faking his blindness. Id. ¶ 93. When the interviews were completed, the F.B.I. and Secret Service agents informed Plaintiffs that they were not deemed security threats, they were cleared of any wrongdoing, and they were free to leave. Id. ¶ 97.

After being released, Plaintiffs went to the terminal and Faja called U.S. Airways to ask for rebooking on the next available flight to Phoenix. Id. ¶ 98-99. When Faja gave the ticketing agent the code on his ticket for Flight 300, the agent informed Faja that Plaintiffs were not permitted to fly with U.S. Airways. Id. ¶ 100. In response to questions from Faja and Shqeirat, the F.B.I. agent assured them they were not on a "no fly" list. Id. ¶ 101. However, the U.S. Airways ticketing agent refused to speak with the F.B.I. agent regarding Plaintiffs' security status. Id. ¶ 102. Shahin called the ticketing agent, who again stated that Plaintiffs could not fly with U.S. Airways. Id. ¶ 103-104. At Plaintiffs' request, the F.B.I. agent called U.S. Airways and spoke for twenty minutes with the same ticketing agent. Id. ¶ 105. However, despite the F.B.I. agent's assurances that Plaintiffs did not pose a security threat, the ticketing agent reiterated that U.S. Airways would not board Plaintiffs. Id. ¶¶ 106-07. Unable...