American Airlines Inc v. Travelport Limited et al

Filing 227

RESPONSE filed by Orbitz Worldwide, LLC, Sabre Holdings Corporation, Sabre Inc, Sabre Travel International Ltd, Travelport Limited, Travelport, LP re: #221 MOTION Request for Rule 16 Status Conference (Falls, Craig)

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

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TRAVELPORT LIMITED, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 4:11-cv-00244-Y
)
)
)
)
)
)

DEFENDANTS’ JOINT RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFF AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.’S
REQUEST FOR RULE 16 STATUS CONFERENCE
On February 6, 2011, Plaintiff American Airlines, Inc. (“AA”) filed a motion [Doc. 221]
requesting that this Court convene a status conference as soon as its schedule permits. In
actuality, AA’s Motion is little more than an attempt to secure oral argument on a handful of its
pending motions. As a result, Defendants oppose AA’s motion and respectfully submit this joint
response.
Local Civil Rule 7.1(g) expressly states: “No Oral Argument. Unless otherwise
directed by the presiding judge, oral argument on a motion will not be held.” Similarly, this
Court’s Requirements state: “Hearings on motions are set by the Court only when the Court
determines that a hearing is necessary. Parties must submit in the motion, the response, and the
reply all information necessary for a ruling.” Requirements for District Judge Terry R. Means,
§ II.C. (as amended 8/02/11). Of course, if the Court notifies the parties that it desires oral
argument for any of the pending motions, Defendants will participate.
The correspondence between the parties on this issue makes it clear that AA’s purpose in

-1-

seeking a “status conference” is solely to obtain oral argument on pending motions. (See App’x.
at 5-15.) On January 23, 2012, AA inquired whether Defendants would join AA in a request for
a status conference. (App’x. at 5.) Defendants asked AA to specify the topics it wished to
discuss at any such conference. (App’x. at 5, 7.) AA’s response was that, because “American
moved to extend scheduling order deadlines,” AA “will seek the Court’s guidance on the
schedule.” (Letter from P. Yetter, Jan. 26, 2012 [Doc. 221-2] at 1.) AA also asserted that a
status conference was necessary because
[the Second Amended Complaint] did not address certain
omissions identified in the Court’s opinion that American can
cure. . . . It will waste the Court’s time to decide the motions
before American includes these new allegations, which American
has already provided in its proposed Third Amended Complaint.
(Id.) Thus, AA’s only explanation for its requested “status conference” is to ask the Court for its
“guidance” on AA’s pending motion for an extension and to argue why the Court should grant
AA’s pending motion for reconsideration and round-about request for leave to amend – in other
words, to engage in oral argument in favor of its pending motions.
AA’s motion likewise makes plain that its request for a “status conference” is a pretext
for oral argument. The fact of the matter is that this Court has already issued a scheduling order
and the parties are proceeding under the terms of that order. AA has sought to modify that
schedule by motion, and that motion is fully briefed. Thus, when AA claims that the “status
conference will allow the parties to confer with the Court on the current pretrial schedule in light
of the outstanding motions” (AA Motion [Doc. 221] at 4), what AA means is that it wants to
present oral argument on its motion for a five-month extension of the case schedule [Doc. 168].1

1

The same is true when AA says that “[t]he parties could report on the status of discovery, and American could
report on the progress of its chapter 11 case.” (Id. at 4-5.) Indeed, this statement suggests that AA wants to argue
not only the points made in its existing briefs, but also to raise additional arguments that it failed to include in its
existing briefs [Docs. 168, 205] or in the proposed supplemental brief it recently filed [Doc. 211-1]. AA’s strategy

-2-

When AA says that a status conference is necessary so that AA can explain why it would
be “inefficient and wasteful of the Court’s time to decide the outstanding motions to dismiss,”2
(AA Motion [Doc. 221] at 4), what AA means is that it wants to present oral argument in favor
of its pending motion for reconsideration and request for leave to amend [Doc. 162].
If the Court believes it would benefit from oral argument on any of the pending motions
or a status conference on other topics, Defendants will of course participate. But Defendants do
not believe it is necessary or proper for AA to seek a “status conference” as a pretext for
obtaining an oral argument that this Court has not requested.

Dated: February 13, 2012
/s/ Christopher S. Yates
Christopher S. Yates
[e-mail]
Daniel M. Wall
[e-mail]
Brendan A. McShane
[e-mail]
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

/s/ Michael L. Weiner
Michael L. Weiner
[e-mail]
DECHERT LLP
1095 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036-6797
212.698.3608
212.698.3599 (Fax)

contravenes this Court’s requirement that parties submit in their briefs all information necessary for a decision.
2

AA’s efficiency arguments make no sense. If AA truly believed that it could fix all of the deficiencies in its First
Amended Complaint, then it should have moved for leave to amend during the two-week interval between the
Court’s ruling on those deficiencies and the filing of AA’s Second Amended Complaint. Having instead filed its
Second Amended Complaint, thus obligating Defendants to file motions to dismiss, AA should not now be allowed
to argue that it would be “inefficient” for the Court to decide those motions. This is prejudicial to Defendants. (See,
e.g., Travelport Opp. Br. [Doc. 182] at 9-11.) What is inefficient is AA’s pattern of continuously amending its
pleadings while motions to dismiss are pending so that Defendants perpetually have to chase a moving target when
addressing the sufficiency of AA’s pleadings.

-3-

John J. Little
Texas State Bar No. 12424230
[e-mail]
LITTLE PEDERSEN FANKHAUSER
LLP
901 Main Street, Suite 4110
Dallas, TX 75202-3714
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Mike Cowie
[e-mail]
Craig Falls
[e-mail]
DECHERT LLP
1775 I Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006-2401
202.261.3300
202.261.3333 (Fax)

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE, LLC

Carolyn Feeney
[e-mail]
Justin N. Pentz
[e-mail]
DECHERT LLP
2929 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
215.994.4000
215.994.2222 (Fax)

/s/ Sundeep (Rob) Addy
Ralph H. Duggins
Texas Bar No. 06183700
([e-mail])
Scott A. Fredricks
Texas Bar No. 24012657
([e-mail])
Philip A. Vickers
Texas Bar No. 24051699
([e-mail])
CANTEY HANGER LLP
Cantey Hanger Plaza
600 West 6th Street, Suite 300
Fort Worth, TX 76102-3685
Phone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Chris Lind
Illinois Bar No. 6225464,
Colorado Bar No 27719
([e-mail])
Andrew K. Polovin
Illinois Bar No. 6275707
([e-mail])
BARTLIT BECK HERMAN
PALENCHAR & SCOTT LLP
54 West Hubbard Street, Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60610
Phone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Walker C. Friedman
State Bar No. 07472500
[e-mail]
Christian D. Tucker
State Bar No. 00795690
[e-mail]
FRIEDMAN, SUDER & COOKE, P.C.
Tindall Square Warehouse No. 1
604 East 4th Street, Suite 200
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
817.334.0400
817.334.0401 (Fax)
John T. Schriver
[e-mail]
Paul E. Chronis
[e-mail]
DUANE MORRIS LLP
190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3700
Chicago, Illinois 60603-3433
312.499.6700
312.499.6701 (Fax)

-4-

Donald E. Scott
Colorado Bar No. 21219,
Illinois Bar No. 2531321
([e-mail])
Karma M. Giulianelli
Colorado Bar No. 30919,
California Bar No. 184175
([e-mail])
Sean C. Grimsley
Colorado Bar No. 36422,
California Bar No. 216741
([e-mail])
Sundeep K. (Rob) Addy
Colorado Bar No. 38754
([e-mail])
BARTLIT BECK HERMAN
PALENCHAR & SCOTT LLP
1899 Wynkoop Street, 8thFloor
Denver, Colorado 80202
Phone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Faith E. Gay
[e-mail]
Steig D. Olson
[e-mail]
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, New York 10010
212.849.7000
212.849.7100 (Fax)
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
TRAVELPORT LIMITED and
TRAVELPORT, LP

George S. Cary
([e-mail])
Steven J. Kaiser
([e-mail])
CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN &
HAMILTON LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
ATTORNEYS FOR SABRE INC.,
SABRE HOLDINGS CORPORATION,
AND SABRE TRAVEL INTERNATIONAL
LIMITED

-5-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 13th day of February, 2012, I electronically filed 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/ Craig G. Falls
Craig G. Falls