Segalman v. Southwest Airlines Co.
Filing
26
MEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 6/19/12: Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED, and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16) is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff shall file his Second Amended Complaint not later than five (5) days following the date this Memorandum and Order is electronically filed. (Kaminski, H)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ROBERT SEGALMAN,
12
13
14
No. 2:11-cv-01800-MCE-CKD
Plaintiff,
v.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.,
15
Defendant.
16
----oo0oo----
17
18
Plaintiff Robert Segalman (“Plaintiff”) initiated this
19
action on July 8, 2011.
Presently before the Court are Defendant
20
Southwest Airline’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
21
First Amended Complaint (“Defendant’s Motion”) and Plaintiff’s
22
Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (“Plaintiff’s
23
Motion”).
24
GRANTED and Defendant’s Motion is DENIED as moot.1
For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is
25
26
27
28
1
Because oral argument will not be of material assistance,
the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.
Local Rule 230(g).
1
BACKGROUND
1
2
3
According to Plaintiff, who has Cerebral Palsy and can
4
neither walk nor talk aloud, he has been injured on multiple
5
occasions by Defendant airline’s improper stowage and transport
6
of his power wheelchair during the course of his various flights.
7
For example, in one instance, Plaintiff arrived at his
8
destination terminal to find his chair’s seat belt broken.
9
Plaintiff subsequently fell out of the chair and broke his shin
10
in two places.
11
returned to him with no power, so he was forced to utilize a
12
manual wheelchair with the assistance of an attendant for
13
extended periods of time.
14
operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Plaintiff alleges
15
three causes of action against Defendant for: 1) violation of the
16
Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 (“ACAA”), 49 U.S.C. § 41705;
17
2) discriminatory practices in public accommodations, California
18
Civil Code §§ 51, 52, 54, 54.1, 54.3; and 3) negligence.
19
On other occasions, Plaintiff’s chair was
Accordingly, by way of his currently
Defendant has now moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s FAC arguing
20
first that Plaintiff’s state law claims are preempted by the ACAA
21
and, second, that Plaintiff has no private right of action under
22
federal law.
23
own Motion seeking leave to amend.
24
“[w]hile it is true the ACAA preempts state law disability
25
discrimination claims as to liability informing conduct and the
26
standard of care as to negligence, it does not in every instance
27
preempt state law remedies.”
28
(emphasis in original).
Plaintiff opposed Defendant’s Motion and filed his
According to Plaintiff,
Plaintiff’s Opposition, 5:4-6
2
1
Plaintiff thus “requests leave to amend to remove [those]
2
allegations, to remove the ACAA claim and to add an ADA claim.”
3
Id., 5:8-9.
4
of the state law remedies is improper.”
5
Plaintiff nonetheless still argues that “dismissal
Id., 5:9-10.
For its part, Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s Motion “because
6
an amended pleading would be futile, and the complaint would be
7
subject to dismissal.”
8
specifically, Defendant contends Plaintiff’s state law claims as
9
alleged in the proposed SAC, like those in the FAC, are still
10
preempted by the ACAA and that airlines are excluded from the
11
ADA’s reach.
12
rejects Defendant’s arguments as premature and hereby GRANTS
13
Plaintiff’s Motion.
Defendant’s Opposition, 2:12-13.
Id., 2:13-18.
More
For the following reasons, the Court
14
ANALYSIS
15
16
17
“The court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice
18
so requires.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
“This policy is to be
19
applied with extreme liberality.”
20
Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (internal citations and
21
quotations omitted).
22
dilatory motive on the part of the movant,...undue prejudice to
23
the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or]
24
futility of the amendment...,” leave to amend should be granted.
25
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Eminence Capital,
26
316 F.3d at 1052 (listing the Foman factors as those to be
27
considered when deciding whether to grant leave to amend).
28
///
Eminence Capital, LLC v.
Indeed, absent “undue delay, bad faith or
3
1
Denying leave to amend is proper only if it is clear that “the
2
complaint could not be saved by any amendment.”
3
Techs., Inc. v. Crest Group, Inc., 499 F.3d 1048, 1056 (9th Cir.
4
2007) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
5
Intri-Plex
Having considered all of the above factors, the Court now
6
holds that leave to amend is warranted.
First, there is no
7
evidence before the Court, nor does Defendant argue, that
8
Plaintiff filed his instant Motion in bad faith or with a
9
dilatory motive.
In addition, the fact Plaintiff’s claims are of
10
great import not just to him but to the public further supports
11
granting leave to amend here.
12
litigation is in its infancy, Defendant will suffer no prejudice
13
if Plaintiff is permitted to amend.
14
Defendant’s only argument in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion is
15
that amendment would be futile.
16
7:2-5.
17
determination on less than a full record.
18
reasons just stated, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is GRANTED.
19
///
20
///
21
///
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
Moreover, given that this
Perhaps recognizing as much,
See Plaintiff’s Opposition,
This Court is unwilling, however, to make that
4
Accordingly, for the
CONCLUSION
1
2
3
For the reasons just stated, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend
4
(ECF No. 17) is GRANTED, and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF
5
No. 16) is DENIED as moot.
6
Amended Complaint not later than five (5) days following the date
7
this Memorandum and Order is electronically filed.
8
9
Plaintiff shall file his Second
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 19, 2012
10
11
12
_____________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?