Sousanis v. Nw. Airlines, Inc. - No. C-99-2994 MHP, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23607 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2000)

Rule:

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim will be denied unless it appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts which would entitle him or her to relief. All material allegations in the complaint will be taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Although the court is generally confined to consideration of the allegations in the pleadings, when the complaint is accompanied by attached documents, such documents are deemed part of the complaint and may be considered in evaluating the merits of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

Facts:

Plaintiff Marti Sousanis spent her 1998 winter holiday in Detroit. She purchased her round-trip airline ticket from defendant Northwest Airlines Inc. Plaintiff was scheduled to return on Saturday January 2, 1999. During the New Year’s weekend, Detroit experienced a blizzard, and its Metro Airport was blanketed with snow and ice. Plaintiff boarded her homebound flight as scheduled. However, the flight was detained and ultimately canceled due to the inclement weather. The following day, plaintiff obtained a boarding pass for the flight scheduled to depart in the early afternoon, but worsening weather caused further delay. Still, defendant instructed the passengers of the said flight to board the aircraft. The passengers were seated, the doors were secured but the plane never took off. For approximately six hours, said flight remained parked at the gate or on the runway due to weather-related and mechanical problems. Plaintiff alleged that she suffered a chronic back condition that worsened if she was forced to sit for too long. She claimed that she began to feel her back tighten after some period of remaining in her seat on said flight, and so she stood up in her row to stretch her back. But the flight attendant ordered her to sit down because the seat belt sign was illuminated. She attempted to explain her condition but the flight attendant would not listen. Instead, the supervisor was summoned who advised plaintiff that her refusal to comply with flight crew instructions constituted a violation of federal law. Plaintiff alleged that she again tried to explain her medical need but she was given a notice advising her that passengers who interfere with the operation of the aircraft were subject to arrest. At around midnight, defendant canceled said flight and the passengers deplaned. Plaintiff filed suit against defendants alleging various tort and contract claims pertaining to a detained flight. Defendant removed the action to this court on diversity grounds. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint adding three state statutory causes of action and requesting declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs first amended complaint stated nine claims against defendants. Now before the court was defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 

Issue:

Should the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim be granted?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed with prejudice plaintiff’s breach of contract claim as the court found that the contract allowed defendant to modify the scheduled air travel in many different ways, including the date and time of travel. Defendant fulfilled its obligations under the contract when it transported plaintiff to San Francisco on January 4, 1999. Thus, plaintiff received full performance. Therefore, the court found that plaintiff has not pled the required elements of a breach of contract. And since defendant did not breach the contract, the court also held that there was no breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. As to the third claim, that was intentional infliction of emotional distress, the court ruled that plaintiff did not suffer severe emotional distress of a substantial and enduring nature. While she may have been upset, even shocked and surprised, that does not rise to the level of intentional infliction of emotional distress under California law. As to the false imprisonment claim, the court found that defendant was acting lawfully by confining plaintiff to her seat within the aircraft while the seat belt sign was illuminated, thus, plaintiff failed to plead the elements required to state her claim. The court also dismissed with prejudiced plaintiff’s negligence, disability discrimination in violation of California Civil Code section 54.1 et seq., civil rights discrimination in violation of the Unruh Act, California Civil Code section 51 et seq., violation of California's Unfair Competition statute, Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17201, and declaratory and injunctive relief claim insofar as they are not cognizable under California law.