Syed v. Frontier Airlines, Inc.

Decision Date25 February 2021
Docket NumberCase No. 4:20-cv-00407-MTS
Citation522 F.Supp.3d 503
Parties Ashfaq Hussain SYED, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC., et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

Anna H. Oshiro, Laurel Elizabeth Pepe, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert, Honolulu, HI, Elizabeth Haws Connally, Connally Law, PLLC, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff.

Johnathan M. Bailey, Pro Hac Vice, Bailey & Bailey, P.C., San Antonio, TX, Julia Kimie Brotman, William G. Meyer, III, Settle Meyer Law, a Limited Liability Law Company, Honolulu, HI, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MATTHEW T. SCHELP, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Hallmark Aviation Services, L.P.’s1 ("Hallmark") Motion to Dismiss and to Strike, Doc. [10]. The Motion is fully briefed, and the Court heard oral argument. For the reasons stated herein, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the Motion to Dismiss and to Strike.

I. Background2

Plaintiffs Ashfaq Hussain Syed and Shelly Renee Branch booked a flight for themselves and their infant twins to Las Vegas, Nevada. Doc. [1-1] ¶ 23. Branch paid $211.40, including fees, for two tickets on a Frontier Airlines flight to Las Vegas scheduled to depart St. Louis at 5:59 p.m. on Sunday, July 15, 2018. Id. ¶¶ 23, 26. Plaintiffs assert that because their children were under two at the time there was no charge for the children's travel, and "they were expected to sit on" their parents’ laps. Id. ¶ 25. Once in Las Vegas with their infant children, Plaintiffs planned to marry and then to go see friends and family on the California coast. Id. ¶ 28. But their planned trip to the West went south after a string of disputes with Hallmark and Frontier staff over Plaintiffs’ seat assignments led to their eventual removal from the flight.

When they arrived at the airport on their planned day of departure, they headed to the check-in counter, where they first encountered Jerra'Sha Young, an employee of Hallmark Aviation.3 Id. ¶ 30. Plaintiffs allege that Young was "disagreeable and hostile" from the start and declined to waive the bag fee for their checked luggage despite Syed's veteran status. Id. ¶¶ 33, 35. Next, Young informed Plaintiffs that they "could not sit together" even though Plaintiffs had confirmed their adjoining seat assignments during their purchase. Id. ¶ 36. When Plaintiffs asked why, Young informed them that if they "argue[d]" and did "not accept [i]t," then Plaintiffs’ tickets would be canceled. Id. ¶ 37. Young provided the family their boarding passes, which contained their new seat assignments, and they proceeded to security. Id. ¶¶ 41, 42, 45.

Once through security, Branch called Frontier's customer service line "to inquire about the seating situation." Id. ¶ 46. The agent on the phone restored the Plaintiffs’ previous seat assignments and told Branch to inform Young that the agent had done so. Id. ¶ 47. When they arrived at the gate, Plaintiffs observed that Young was now stationed there, and Plaintiffs told her that the phone agent had "restored their seat assignments." Id. ¶¶ 49, 50. In a "loud and irritated voice," Young said to them: "You will listen to me. I am the one that will tell you where you can sit, and I told you that you will not sit together." Id. ¶¶ 50, 52. Young's words and demeanor purportedly made Branch "very uncomfortable." Id. ¶ 53. Plaintiffs "quietly" sat down at the gate waiting area as to "avoid further confrontation." Id. ¶ 55.

At approximately 5:30 p.m., Plaintiffs pre-boarded their flight, walked down the airplane's aisle, and approached their "originally assigned seats in Row 40." Id. ¶¶ 56, 57. A flight attendant informed Branch and Syed that she "had been made aware" of them and that they "would not be able to sit together." Id. ¶ 58, 59. Syed asked the flight attendant "why they were receiving this treatment," and the flight attendant explained that no row in the airplane was equipped with enough oxygen masks to accommodate two lap infants—meaning that if Syed and Branch sat in the same row with the infants, someone would have been without a life-sustaining supplemental oxygen supply in the event of an emergency. Id. ¶ 60; see also 14 C.F.R. § 91.211. Syed and Branch "then understood" the "rational reason" for separating them, and the two claim they then "abandoned all thoughts and intentions to sit on the same side of the plane in the same row." Doc. [1-1] ¶ 61.

Syed and Branch, still standing near their original seats, began to stow their luggage and care for their infants when a passenger in seat 40F, who apparently had overheard their conversation with the flight attendant, offered to sit in Syed's reassigned seat so that her seat would be empty to allow Plaintiffs to sit together. Id. ¶ 63. The flight attendant stated that it "w[ould] not work" and walked away. Id. ¶ 64, 65. Then, another passenger walked towards where Plaintiffs were standing. Id. ¶ 67. It somehow "appeared" to Plaintiffs that the passenger "was assigned to 39D," so Syed asked the passenger whether he would "swap seats" so that the passenger "would take the seat in approximately row 35 to which Syed was now assigned, so that Syed and one child could sit in closer proximity to Branch and the other child." Id. ¶ 68, 69. The passenger "good-naturedly agreed." Id. ¶ 70.

At that point, Branch and Syed were in aisle seats of adjacent rows, one behind the other, each holding one infant in their laps. Id. ¶ 71. The "nearly full" plane sat at the gate "for what seemed an unusually long time." Id. ¶¶ 72, 73. Branch and Syed "exchanged pleasantries" with other passengers. Id. ¶ 76. Branch gave her phone to one passenger after she asked if she could take a picture of them. Id. ¶¶ 77, 78. Branch posted that picture to Facebook at 6:10 p.m. Id. ¶ 79. Shortly thereafter, Young boarded the plane, "marched up to" Plaintiffs, and pointed her finger in both their faces saying, "you and you get your stuff." Id. ¶ 80.

Syed and Branch "wordlessly complied." Id. ¶ 81. They retrieved their carry-on items and followed Young down the aisle. Id. When they reached the front of the plane, Branch asked Young where they were going. Id. ¶ 82. "Off," Young replied. Id. When Branch asked why, Young said that they would be told once they were off the plane. Id. ¶ 83. Syed and Branch exited while Young remained in the airplane's doorway. Id. ¶ 84. Branch "saw another Frontier employee" and asked her to speak to a supervisor. Id. ¶ 85. That employee introduced herself as "Dez" and identified herself as a supervisor. Id. ¶ 86. Branch asked Dez why they were removed, and Dez told them that "passengers and flight attendants felt uncomfortable with Plaintiffs being on the plane." Id. ¶ 88. Dez then left the area via the jet bridge. Id. ¶ 89.

Branch once again asked Young why Plaintiffs were being removed from the flight. Id. ¶ 90. Young echoed Dez and said Plaintiffs had made "the flight attendants and passengers uncomfortable." Id. At that point, Plaintiffs claim to have "observed" Young, the flight attendant, and another unidentified employee "snickering at them" from the open plane door. Id. ¶ 91. A Frontier "employee or representative" then brought Plaintiffs their stroller from the apron below. Id. ¶ 93. Branch began fastening the children in the stroller. Id. ¶ 94. Young then "pushed past" them, proceeded up the jet bridge, and closed the jet bridge's terminal door while Plaintiffs were "well behind." Id. ¶ 95. When Branch reached the jet bridge door to the terminal, she "pushed on" it, but it would not open. Id. ¶ 96. Branch went back to the "airplane end" of the jet bridge and found the airplane's door closed. Id. ¶ 97. Thus, Plaintiffs were in the jet bridge with two "locked" doors on each end.4 Id. ¶ 98. They were "hot" and "sweating," and the infants were "screaming." Id. ¶ 99. Branch began developing a headache, "likely a migraine, from the stress." Id. ¶ 107.

While "locked" in the jet bridge, Branch again called Frontier's customer service line and told the telephone agent what happened and how the family was in the jet bridge. Id. ¶¶ 102, 104. The telephone agent said her records showed that Plaintiffs were on the plane, but she said she would get someone to let Plaintiffs out of the jet bridge. Id. ¶¶ 103, 105. Eventually, a Frontier employee and Young opened the terminal door to the jet bridge. Id. ¶ 108. Plaintiffs do not know how long they were "locked" in the jet bridge, but they estimate "a few minutes, approximately 3–10." Id. ¶ 109.

Now out of the jet bridge, Branch initiated another call to Frontier customer service and spoke to a third telephone agent5 to request that the airline rebook the family's flight. Id. ¶ 113. That agent informed Branch that an agent at the airport needed to make a computer entry showing that Plaintiffs were removed from the flight so that they could be rebooked. Id. ¶ 115. Branch asked the telephone agent whether it would be alright to place the telephone agent on speakerphone so that the telephone agent could speak to Young. Id. ¶ 116. The telephone agent agreed, and a conversation over speakerphone between the telephone agent, Young, Branch, and Syed ensued. Id. ¶¶ 116, 117. Initially, Young "refused to comply" with the telephone agent's request to change Plaintiffs’ status from on the flight to off it, but "eventually" Young "grudgingly" did so. Id. ¶ 118. The telephone agent then rebooked Plaintiffs for the next day, and the call ended. Id. ¶ 119.

"As Plaintiffs were walking away" Branch was recording video. Id. ¶ 120. Young told Branch that she did not give her permission to record her. Id. Young then said "see you tomorrow" to Plaintiffs. Id. ¶ 120. Plaintiffs "ignored" the comment and kept walking. Id. ¶ 121. Young walked ahead of them, turned around, stopped them, and said, "I don't think you heard me. I will see you at the gate tomorrow. It's the exact same crew as today." Id. Young "smiled widely" and walked...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Da Silva Jackson v. Nelson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
    • July 12, 2022
    ...Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against either defendant.”); Syed v. Frontier Airlines, Inc., 522 F.Supp.3d 503, 513 (E.D. Mo. 2021) (dismissing a claim when it relied on a statute that was not yet in effect). Even if this statute were in effect and Pl......
  • Allen v. Caesars Entm't Corp
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • November 1, 2023
    ... ... (8th Cir. 2014); see also Salier v. Walmart, Inc., ... 76 F.4th 796, 801 (8th Cir. 2023) (“Our task is to ... gives rise to a cause of action.” Syed v. Frontier ... Airlines, Inc., 522 F.Supp.3d 503, 514 (E.D. Mo ... ...

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