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