American Airlines Inc v. Travelport Limited et al

Filing 152

RESPONSE filed by Orbitz Worldwide, LLC re: #148 (Document Restricted) American Airlines Inc.' Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint and Brief in Support (Sealed pursuant to order dated 6/9/2011)(Document Restricted) American Airlines Inc.' Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint and Brief in Support (Sealed pursuant to order dated 6/9/2011) (Yates, Christopher)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,
a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SABRE, INC., a Delaware corporation;
SABRE HOLDINGS CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation and SABRE
TRAVEL INTERNATIONAL LTD., a
foreign corporation, d/b/a SABRE TRAVEL
NETWORK;
TRAVELPORT LIMITED, a foreign
corporation, and TRAVELPORT, LP,
a Delaware limited partnership, d/b/a
TRAVELPORT;
and
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, d/b/a ORBITZ,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 4:11-cv-00244-Y

DEFENDANT ORBITZ WORLDWIDE, LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF
AMERICAN AIRLINES INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Defendant Orbitz Worldwide, LLC (“Orbitz”) hereby responds to plaintiff American
Airlines Inc.’s (“American”) Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint.
This case is centered around a commercial dispute between the GDS defendants, Sabre
and Travelport, and American. Orbitz is one of many online travel companies and one of many
thousands of travel agencies. American first sued Orbitz by alleging that Orbitz was foreclosing
American’s ability to sell airline tickets to its customers because of an agreement between Orbitz

1

and Travelport; American did so after it terminated “for convenience” Orbitz’s ability to sell
tickets on American flights and at a time when American was advertising that fact.
Orbitz moved to dismiss American’s initial complaint. American amended its complaint.
Both Orbitz’s original motion to dismiss (filed May 25, 2011) and its motion to dismiss
American’s amended complaint (filed June 15, 2011) explained the numerous deficiencies in
American’s theory and the controlling authority mandating dismissal of the claims as to Orbitz.
Consistent with its previous complaints, American’s latest proposed amendments
predominantly concern the GDS defendants and not Orbitz. And those of its amendments which
do reference Orbitz purport to concern only alleged reactions to American’s own termination of
Orbitz’s ticketing authority. None cure the threshold deficiencies Orbitz raised previously. For
that reason, resolution of the pending motions to dismiss will help narrow the remaining issues
and frame future motion practice with respect to American’s amended claims.
Orbitz therefore respectfully requests that the Court adjudicate the pending motions to
dismiss – and the claims addressed therein – and then set a schedule by which the parties may
separately brief any new claims raised by American’s latest amendments.
///

2

DATED:

November 10, 2011

Respectfully submitted,
s/ Christopher S. Yates
Christopher S. Yates (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
California State Bar No. 161273
Email: [e-mail]
Daniel M. Wall (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
California State Bar No. 102580
Email: [e-mail]
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
and
John J. Little
Texas State Bar No. 12424230
Email: [e-mail]
Stephen G. Gleboff
Texas State Bar No. 08024500
Email: [e-mail]
Megan K. Dredla
Texas State Bar No. 24050530
Email: [e-mail]
LITTLE PEDERSEN FANKHAUSER LLP
901 Main Street, Suite 4110
Dallas, TX 75202-3714
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE, LLC

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On November 10, 2011, I electronically submitted the foregoing document with the clerk
of the court for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, using
the electronic case filing system of the court. The electronic case filing system sent a “Notice of
Electronic Filing” to the attorneys of record who have consented in writing to accept this Notice
as service of this document by electronic means.

s/ Christopher S. Yates
Christopher S. Yates
SF\882721

4