Bell v. United Air Lines, Inc.
Filing
11
ORDER AND OPINION granting 9 Motion to Dismiss. All pending motions are denied as moot. This case is CLOSED. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 11/30/2011. (ir)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 11-61393-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON
THEETA BELL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNITED AIR LINES, INC.,
Defendant.
___________
/
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant United Air Lines’ Motion to
Dismiss for Improper Venue Under Rule 12(b)(3) [DE 9]. No response to the motion
has been filed, no request for an extension in that regard has been made, and the
time frame for filing a response has expired. The Court notes that on November 14,
2011, the instant motion was returned to the Court, the post office indicating that it
was unable to forward it, and that an updated address for Theetta Bell could not be
located. See DE 10. Since Ms. Bell, proceeding pro se, has not responded to the
motion and has moved without informing the Court of her new address, the motion
could be granted by default. Still, the Court finds the motion should be granted on
the merits.
Standard of Review
When venue is challenged under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3), the plaintiff bears the
burden of proving that venue is proper. Delong Equipment Co. v. Washington Mills
Abrasive Co., 840 F.2d 843, 845 (11th Cir. 1988); Wai v. Rainbow Holdings, 315 F.
Supp. 2d 1261, 1268 (S.D. Fla. 2004). “The court must accept all allegations of the
complaint as true, unless contradicted by the defendants' affidavits.” Wai, 315 F.
Supp. 2d at 1268. When an allegation of the complaint is challenged, the court may
examine facts outside of the complaint to determine whether venue is proper. Id. In
examining the record, the court must draw all reasonable inferences and resolve all
factual conflicts in favor of the plaintiff. Id.
Undisputed Venue Facts
Ms. Bell (“Bell”) was employed as a Reservations Sales and Service
Representative (“RSSR”) at United’s Washington Dulles International Airport
Reservations Center in Virginia until March 2005, when she began an extended illness
leave of absence. Compl. ¶ C(1); Declaration of Mary Joyce, ¶ 3, DE 9, Ex. A (“Joyce
Decl.”). Throughout her active employment with United, Bell was always assigned to
the Washington Dulles International Airport Operations Center. Joyce Decl. ¶ 3. Bell
was notified of her placement on extended illness leave by a letter from Dineen
Hoagland, a Personnel Administrative Supervisor in the Dulles Reservations Center.
Joyce Decl. ¶ 4. Thereafter, Bell was notified of the closure of the Dulles
Reservations Center in a letter sent to her in October 2006 by Chris Morrison, a
Personnel Administrative Supervisor in the Dulles Reservations Center. Joyce Decl. ¶¶
5-6.
Page 2 of 5
After Bell learned of the impending closure of the Dulles Reservations Center,
her attorney inquired about her rights to severance benefits or retirement in late
2006 and early 2007. Stephanie Pulcanio, one of United’s Elk Grove Village, Illinois
based in-house attorneys, responded to Bell’s attorney, explaining that Bell was not
eligible for either severance or retirement at that time. Joyce Decl. ¶ 7. This same
point was made to Bell personally in a September 2007 letter from Eve Haddad, a
Personnel Administrative Supervisor in the Midwest Regional Reservations Center in
Chicago, Illinois. Specifically, Ms. Haddad’s letter advised Bell that she was ineligible
for disability retirement and retiree travel benefits. Joyce Decl. ¶ 8.
Under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement governing the
employment of RSSRs at United, including Bell, an RSSR can remain on extended
illness leave for only three years, after which her employment is severed if she is
unable to return to work. Bell’s leave expired in March 2008, at which point she was
unable to return to work. Accordingly, her employment was terminated at that time.
Joyce Decl. ¶ 9. Bell was notified of her March 2008 termination in a letter sent by
Ms. Haddad and Dawn Galea, another Personnel Administrative Supervisor in the
Midwest Regional Reservations Center. Joyce Decl. ¶ 10. None of the records
relevant to Bell’s lawsuit are maintained in Florida. In fact, United has no
reservations operations, no reservations offices, and no reservations employees in
Florida. Rather the employment records relevant to Bell’s employment, her benefits,
and her lawsuit are all maintained and administered in Illinois. Joyce Decl. ¶ 11.
Page 3 of 5
Venue Analysis
Bell’s suit for employment discrimination is brought solely under the American
with Disabilities Act, as amended, which borrows its jurisdiction and venue provisions
from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Compl. ¶ A. Based on the Bell’s
Complaint and the undisputed facts, Bell has not met her burden of proving that
venue is proper here. Title VII’s special venue provision provides, in relevant part:
an action may be brought in any judicial district in the State in which
the unlawful employment practice is alleged to have been committed,
in the judicial district in which the employment records relevant to such
practice are maintained and administered, or in the judicial district in
which the aggrieved person would have worked but for the alleged
unlawful employment practice, but if the respondent is not found within
any such district, such an action may be brought within the judicial
district in which the respondent has his principal office.
42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(f)(3). Bell has not established venue under any of these four
options. See, e.g., Stacy v. Hilton Head Seafood Co., 688 F.Supp. 599, 604 n.2(S.D.
Ga. 1988) (finding lack of venue in a Title VII case where, as here, plaintiff could not
establish any basis for venue under 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(f)(3)); Kravec v. Chicago
Pneumatic Tool Co., 579 F.Supp. 619, 624 (N.D. Ga. 1983) (same).
First, it is undisputed that Bell worked in Virginia during her entire
employment tenure with United. Second, as established by the declaration of Mary
Joyce, the “employment records relevant to [the alleged unlawful] practice are
maintained and administered” in Illinois, not Florida. Joyce Decl. ¶ 11. Third,
because United has no reservations employees or reservations operations in Florida,
Page 4 of 5
Bell has not and cannot allege that she would have worked in this judicial district.
Finally, United has its principal office in Illinois.
Since Bell cannot establish venue in Florida under Title VII’s venue provision,
which has been incorporated into the ADA, the Complaint must be dismissed for
improper venue. The Court has authority to either dismiss this case or to transfer the
lawsuit to a district in which it could have been brought. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Noting that Plaintiff appears to have abandoned her cause, the Court will dismiss the
case without prejudice. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant United Air Lines’ Motion to Dismiss
for Improper Venue Under Rule 12(b)(3) [DE 9] is GRANTED. This case is closed. Any
pending motions are denied as moot.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County,
Florida, this 30th day of November, 2011.
_________________________
KENNETH A. MARRA
United States District Judge
copies to:
All counsel of record
Theetta Bell, pro se
Page 5 of 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?