American Airlines Inc v. Travelport Limited et al

Filing 35

Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Travelport Limited, Travelport, LP re #34 MOTION to Dismiss FRCP 12(b)(3) and 28 USC Sec. 1406(a) or Transfer American Airlines' Complaint (Friedman, Walker) .

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
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-0244-Y

TRAVELPORT’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
OF ITS FRCP 12(b)3 AND 28 U.S.C. §1406(a) MOTION TO DISMISS
OR TRANSFER AMERICAN AIRLINES’ COMPLAINT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .......................................................................................... 1

II.

BACKGROUND FACTS ................................................................................................... 2

III.

LEGAL AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................... 3

IV.

DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................... 5
A.
B.

The Forum Selection Clause Applies To AA’s Claims .......................................... 6

C.
V.

The Court Should Enforce The Express Forum Selection
Clause To Which AA Agreed ................................................................................. 5

The Court Should Award Travelport Its Fees and Costs Incurred
As A Result of Having To Enforce The Venue Selection Clause ........................ 10

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 10

i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases 
ABC Rental Systems, Inc. v. Colortyme, Inc., 893 F. Supp. 636 (E.D. Tex. 1995) ......................... 9
Albany Ins. Co. v. Almacenadora Somex, S.A., 5 F.3d 907 (5th Cir. 1993) ................................... 4
Bense v. Interstate Battery Sys., 683 F.2d 718 (2d Cir. 1982) ....................................................... 9
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (1991) ......................................................... 4, 5
CK DFW Partners, LTD. v. City Kitchens, Inc., No. 06-cv-1598, 2007 WL
2381529 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 17, 2007)............................................................................................ 4
Dos Santos v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 651 F. Supp. 2d 550 (N.D. Tex. 2009) ..................... 5
Excel Marketing Solutions Inc. v. Direct Financial Solutions, LLC, No. 11-cv0109, 2011 WL 1833022 (N.D. Tex. May 13, 2011) .................................................................. 5
Frietsch v. Refco, Inc., 56 F.3d 825 (7th Cir. 1995) ....................................................................... 5
Haynsworth v. The Corp., 121 F.3d 956 (5th Cir. 1997) ........................................................... 4, 6
Jackson v. West Telemarketing Corp. Outbound, 245 F.3d 518 (5th Cir. 2001) ........................... 4
Kessmann and Assoc., Inc. v. Barton-Aschman Assoc., Inc., 10 F. Supp. 2d 682
(S.D.Tex. 1997)........................................................................................................................... 6
Laserdynamics, Inc. v. Acer America Corp., 209 F.R.D. 388 (S.D. Tex. 2002) ............................. 4
Lim v. Offshore Specialty Fabrication, Inc., 404 F.3d 898 (5th Cir. 2005) .................................... 3
Manetti-Farrow, Inc. v. Gucci America, Inc., 858 F.2d 509 (9th Cir. 1988) ................................. 5
Marinechance Shipping, Ltd. v. Sebastian, 143 F.3 216 (5th Cir. 1998) ....................................... 6
McCaskey v. Continental Airlines Inc., 133 F. Supp. 2d 514 (S.D. Tex. 2001) .............................. 4
Mitsui & Co. (USA) Inc. v. M/ V MIRA, 111 F.3d 33 (5th Cir. 1997) ............................................ 4
Northview Christian Church Inc. v. Monolithic Constructors, Inc., No. 3:09-cv655M, 2010 WL 2605673 (N.D. Tex. June 28, 2010) .............................................................. 10
Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 41 L. Ed. 2d 270, 94 S. Ct. 2449
(1974) ......................................................................................................................................... 4
Soil Building Systems v. CMI Terex Corp., No. 3:04-CV-0210, 2004 WL
1283966*4 (N.D. Tex. June 9, 2004) ......................................................................................... 6
ii

Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 810 F.2d 1066 (11th Cir. 1987) ............................................... 9
The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (1972) ........................................................... 4, 5
Universal Grading v. eBay, No. 08-CV-3557, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49841
(E.D.N.Y. June 9, 2009).............................................................................................................. 9
Ward Packaging, Inc. v. Schiffman, No. 4:02-CV-518-A, 2002 WL 31086077
(N.D. Tex. Sep. 13, 2002) ........................................................................................................... 9
Statutes and Federal Rules 
28 U.S.C. §1406(a) ........................................................................................................... 1, 3, 5, 10
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)3 ....................................................................................................... 1, 3, 5, 10

iii

Defendants, Travelport Limited and Travelport, LP (hereinafter “Travelport”), by and
through their undersigned attorneys, submit this memorandum of law in support of Travelport’s
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)3 and 28 U.S.C. §1406(a) motion to dismiss or transfer.
I.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
This is the second time that AA has ignored its contractual obligations concerning where

AA must file its claims against Travelport. AA previously and improperly filed a declaratory
judgment action against Travelport in Texas even though the parties’ contract expressly requires
that all lawsuits arising out of the parties’ agreement are to be filed in a state or federal court in
Cook County, Illinois. TP APX 4-8, 11. AA subsequently dismissed that Texas case against
Travelport, and the claims that were at issue in that case are now properly pending before the
Circuit Court of Cook County. TP APX 13.
In this 12(b)(3) and §1406(a) motion, Travelport seeks to have the instant case dismissed
as well (or transferred) because AA’s claims arise out of the parties’ contract and the contract
requires that venue for any such suit is only proper in a state or federal court in Cook County,
Illinois. In addition, Travelport respectfully requests that this Court award Travelport its fees
and costs incurred to enforce the parties’ contractual obligations and address this second
improper Texas filing by AA. The payment of such fees and costs is required by the parties’
contract.
There is no question that AA’s action in this Court arises out of AA’s contract with
Travelport. By way of only one example, AA’s complaint asserts that Travelport has
purportedly maintained an illegal monopoly through the enforcement of a content-parity or

1

“most favored nation” (“MFN”) clause in its contract with AA.1 AA’s allegations identify the
contract, quote the MFN clause, attack that clause as anticompetitive, and quote government
regulatory filings characterizing these types of contractual clauses. Moreover, AA claims that it
incurred more than five years’ worth of treble damages as a result of the MFN clause in the
parties’ contract, and AA seeks to enjoin enforcement of that clause in the parties’ contract. The
Court should enforce the parties’ forum selection clause and dismiss the complaint or transfer
AA’s action to the Northern District of Illinois.
II.

BACKGROUND FACTS
Travelport and its affiliated Travelport entities own and operate computerized reservation

systems (“CRSs”) under the trademarks Galileo, Apollo and Worldspan. CRSs, which are also
known as global distribution systems (“GDSs”), enable online and offline travel agents, travel
service providers, travel-related websites, and, through these subscribers, the general public to
search for and/or book airline tickets, hotel rooms, rental cars, and associated products and
services.
Travelport, through its predecessor in interest, Galileo International, L.L.C., entered into
an agreement with AA on July 5, 2006 titled “Preferred Fares Amendment” (the “PFA”)
pursuant to which Travelport obtained various fare, schedule and related information from AA.
The PFA amended an earlier agreement between Travelport and AA called the Galileo

1

Travelport details the many other AA allegations rooting this claim in the parties’ contract in
Section III B, infra.

2

International Global Airline Distribution Agreement (“GIGADA”) which the parties executed on
December 15, 1993. See Kurt Ekert Declaration, TP APX 15.2
Pursuant to the Agreement, AA and Travelport agreed to the following provision:
21.

GOVERNING LAW

This Agreement and all disputes arising under or in
connection with this Agreement, including actions in tort, shall be
governed by the internal laws of the State of Illinois, without
regard to its conflicts of laws principles. All actions brought to
enforce or arising out of this Agreement shall be brought in
federal or state courts located within the County of Cook, State
of Illinois, USA, the parties hereby consenting to personal
jurisdiction and venue therein.
TP APX 11.
In its Complaint, AA repeatedly makes allegations about the parties’ Agreement,
including its MFN and other contract terms, as being the foundation for AA’s primary claims.
However, while liberally referencing other contractual provisions, AA omits any mention of the
fact that the Agreement obligates the parties to litigate their disputes in the state or federal court
in Cook County, Illinois. Indeed, nowhere in its complaint did AA advise this Court or
otherwise acknowledge this exclusive forum selection to which AA agreed.
III.

LEGAL AUTHORITIES
In the Fifth Circuit, a party may seek to dismiss or transfer an action filed in an improper

venue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Lim v.
Offshore Specialty Fabrication, Inc., 404 F.3d 898, 902 (5th Cir. 2005) (“our court has treated a
motion to dismiss based on a forum selection clause as properly brought under Rule 12(b)(3)

2

The GIGADA and PFA are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Agreement.”

3

(improper venue)” citing Albany Ins. Co. v. Almacenadora Somex, S.A., 5 F.3d 907, 909 & n.3
(5th Cir. 1993)); Jackson v. West Telemarketing Corp. Outbound, 245 F.3d 518, 523 (5th Cir.
2001) (holding that “a transfer for improper venue comes under § 1406(a)”). The burden of
sustaining venue rests with the plaintiff. McCaskey v. Continental Airlines Inc., 133 F. Supp. 2d
514, 523 (S.D. Tex. 2001).
Federal law controls the Court’s examination concerning the enforceability of a forum
selection clause. Haynsworth v. The Corp., 121 F.3d 956, 962 (5th Cir. 1997); CK DFW
Partners, LTD. v. City Kitchens, Inc., No. 06-cv-1598, 2007 WL 2381529, *2 n.7 (N.D. Tex.
Aug. 17, 2007) (“In this circuit…the proper law to apply to [forum selection clause enforcement]
questions is federal, whether jurisdiction is based on diversity, a federal question, or some
combination of the two.”).
The United States Supreme Court has held that forum selection clauses are presumptively
valid. See The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 10 (1972); Carnival Cruise Lines,
Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 591-94 (1991); see also Mitsui & Co. (USA) Inc. v. M/ V MIRA, 111
F.3d 33 (5th Cir. 1997) (affirming dismissal for improper venue pursuant to a forum selection
clause and stating “[t]he Supreme Court has consistently held forum-selection and choice-of-law
clauses presumptively valid”).
To rebut this presumption, the opposing party must demonstrate that the forum selection
clause is unreasonable, the result of fraud or coercion, that the enforcement of the provision
would violate a stout public policy, or that “enforcement of the clause would deprive the plaintiff
of his day in court.” Bremen, 407 U.S. at 12-13; Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506,
519 n.14, 41 L. Ed. 2d 270, 94 S. Ct. 2449 (1974); Laserdynamics, Inc. v. Acer America Corp.,
209 F.R.D. 388 (S.D. Tex. 2002).

4

Moreover, the presumption of validity conferred upon forum selection clauses can only
be overcome by the plaintiff’s “strong showing” that enforcement would be unjust, unfair, or
unreasonable under the circumstances. See Bremen, 407 U.S. at 10; Carnival Cruise Lines, 499
U.S. at 593-94; Excel Marketing Solutions Inc. v. Direct Financial Solutions, LLC, No. 11-cv0109, 2011 WL 1833022, at*5 (N.D. Tex. May 13, 2011) (enforcing forum selection clause and
dismissing action pursuant to 12(b)(3) and §1406(a); “The party who seeks to avoid application
of a forum selection clause bears a heavy burden of proof justifying its avoidance”) (internal
quotation omitted).
IV.

DISCUSSION
A.

The Court Should Enforce The Express Forum Selection Clause To Which
AA Agreed

As alleged, AA is a massive international airline with approximately 3,500 daily
departures. Complaint, ¶ 16. AA is also a sophisticated company with many in-house and
outside lawyers and was fully capable of negotiating and did negotiate and execute the PFA with
Travelport3. AA has not alleged that the venue provision in the Agreement was a product of

3

AA’s claims against Travelport Limited and Orbitz are also subject to the forum selection
clause, because both Travelport Limited and Orbitz are “closely related” to Travelport, LP. See
Frietsch v. Refco, Inc., 56 F.3d 825, 827 (7th Cir. 1995) (“[C]ourts in this country…enforce
forum selection clauses in favor of nonparties ‘closely related’ to a signatory.”); Manetti-Farrow,
Inc. v. Gucci America, Inc., 858 F.2d 509, 514 n. 5 (9th Cir. 1988) (applying forum selection
clause in favor of non-signatories). As alleged by AA, Travelport Limited is the entity that
“owns, controls, or operates” the Travelport GDSs that AA has contracted to use via its
agreement with Travelport, LP. Complaint, ¶ 17. Similarly, Orbitz was a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Travelport until 2007, and Travelport, LP, Travelport Limited, and Orbitz are
owned by a common corporate parent. Ekert Decl., TP APX 15; see also Orbitz’s Mot. to
Dismiss § III (C) (1)-(2). These entities are “closely related.” See Dos Santos v. Bell Helicopter
Textron, Inc., 651 F. Supp. 2d 550, 556-57 (N.D. Tex. 2009) (Means, J.) (denying
reconsideration of motion to dismiss and enforcing forum selection clause in favor of a “closely
(Continued…)
5

fraud or coercion. See, e.g., Haynsworth v. Lloyd’s of London, 121 F.3d 956 (5th Cir. 1997)
(“Fraud and overreaching must be specific to a forum selection clause in order to invalidate it.”).
Indeed, as noted above, AA did not bother to mention the existence of the venue provision to the
Court. Further, AA cannot reasonably assert that the venue provision violates public policy or
deprives AA of its day in Court. The parties agreed to avail themselves of the courts in Cook
County, Illinois to resolve their disputes, and there is no basis for AA to contend that its claims
cannot be adjudicated there. To be sure, AA is currently litigating against Travelport over the
Agreement in the Circuit Court of Cook County, and AA has not asserted in its Complaint that
the venue provision violates public policy, is unfair, is the product of coercion, or that it prevents
AA from obtaining its day in court.
B.

The Forum Selection Clause Applies To AA’s Claims

In this circuit, courts “look first to the language of the parties’ contracts to determine
which causes of action are governed by the forum selection clause.” Soil Building Systems v.
CMI Terex Corp., No. 3:04-CV-0210, 2004 WL 1283966, at *4 (N.D. Tex. June 9, 2004)
(enforcing forum selection clause and quoting Marinechance Shipping, Ltd. v. Sebastian, 143 F.3
216, 222 (5th Cir. 1998)). “Claims that arise out of the contractual relationship and implicate the
agreement are subject to the forum-selection clause.” Kessmann and Assoc., Inc. v. BartonAschman Assoc., Inc., 10 F. Supp. 2d 682, 688 (S.D.Tex. 1997).

(Continued…)
related” affiliate that was involved in the transaction at issue and shared a common parent with
the contracting party).

6

As set forth above, the forum selection clause at issue in this case is broad and refers to
“[a]ll actions brought to enforce or arising out of this Agreement….” TP APX 11 (emphasis
added). AA’s complaint clearly “arises out of” the Agreement because it is replete with
allegations about: i) the Agreement generally; ii) the specific terms of the Agreement; iii) the
legal claims which those specific contract terms purportedly give rise to; and iv) how AA is
allegedly harmed by the Agreement and its terms. Some examples include:


AA unequivocally alleges that the Agreement is one of two contracts that is
“relevant here.” Complaint, ¶ 18. AA rightfully confirmed the obvious fact that
the Agreement is “relevant” to AA’s complaint because AA repeatedly refers to
the Agreement and its specific terms in describing the genesis of AA’s claims and
AA’s purported harm resulting from those terms.4



AA alleges that “Travelport’s exclusionary acts and practices include: [i]mposing
anticompetitive contract terms in their agreements with participating airlines
that severely limit the airlines’ ability to develop, promote, or use competing
distribution channels.” Complaint, ¶ 8.5 (emphasis added). As noted, one of
these “agreements with participating airlines” is the admittedly “relevant”
Agreement between AA and Travelport. Moreover, by these allegations, AA
confirms that Travelport’s supposed “exclusionary acts and practices” are firmly
rooted in the “anticompetitive contract terms” in the Agreement and others like it.
In other words, the complained of conduct arises out of the Agreement.

4

According to AA, the other “relevant agreement” is the Subscriber Services Agreement
(“SSA”) between Orbitz and Travelport. Like the Agreement, the SSA also contains a forum
selection clause requiring that all actions be brought in the state or federal court in Cook County,
Illinois. TP APX 18. While AA is not a party to the SSA, the forum selection clause in the SSA,
at the least, demonstrates that co-defendant Orbitz is not adverse to litigating in Cook County
(which is where Orbitz is headquartered). Also, AA chose to put the SSA at issue in this case so
Travelport and Orbitz should not be deprived of their chosen forum for resolving matters arising
out of that agreement.
5

AA makes other similar allegations, including at ¶ 44 of its Complaint which provides that
“Travelport has responded to these attempts to generate competition first, by imposing contract
terms on the airlines that effectively protect the GDSs from this type of competitive discipline,
and second, by retaliating against airlines that have engaged in this type of effort, including
American.” (Emphasis added).

7



AA alleges that “If American wants to sell tickets to business travelers who rely
on a travel agent that subscribes to one of Travelport’s GDSs, it has no choice but
to participate in that GDS or risk losing a substantial number of those ticket
sales.” Complaint, ¶ 35 (emphasis added). AA’s participation in the Travelport
GDS is governed by the Agreement. Therefore, AA is really alleging that it has
supposedly been forced to enter into the Agreement and others like it. While
factually untrue with respect to the Agreement, this allegation nonetheless
confirms that AA’s action arises out of the Agreement.



Similar to the immediately above provision, AA alleges that “Travelport has used
its monopoly power to impose anticompetitive terms and conditions on airlines
that participate in Travelport’s GDSs. These restrictions have the purpose and
effect of foreclosing the few avenues available to the airlines to promote and
encourage competition between different GDSs, as well as competition between
GDSs and emerging distribution channels.” Complaint, ¶ 43. (Emphasis added).
AA also alleges that “The restrictive provisions in Travelport’s long-term
contracts with participating airline carriers constitute agreements in unreasonable
restraint of interstate commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.”
Complaint, ¶120. (Emphasis added). Again, while manifestly false, these
provisions undisputedly demonstrate that AA is complaining about the terms of
the Agreement.



AA specifically alleges that a most favored nation provisions in Section 2.1 of the
Agreement is but one of the terms that gives rise to AA’s claims. Complaint, ¶
46. On this same point, alleges that “Travelport makes widespread use of the
most-favored nation (“MFN”) provisions in the form of “full content” or “content
parity” provisions in its participating carrier agreements that limit participating
airlines’ ability to encourage the use of one GDS over another or the use of
alternative providers of airline booking services other than GDSs.” Complaint, ¶
45.



AA also makes allegations quoting filings from the Department of Justice and the
Department of Transportation in asserting that the “MFN” provision in the
Agreement is anticompetitive. See Complaint, ¶¶ 51, 52. Thus, these allegations
are also tied to the terms of the parties’ Agreement.



AA alleges at paragraph 85 of its Complaint that Travelport “retaliates against
American.” The alleged retaliation was that Travelport raised AA’s booking
fees. AA’s obligations to pay Travelport booking fees are, not surprisingly, set
forth in the parties’ Agreement. Accordingly, Travelport allegedly retaliated
against AA by exercising a contractual right. This claim of retaliation therefore
necessarily arises out of the Agreement.



AA’s allegations about its supposed harm arising out of the Agreement and others
like it get to a remarkably granular level. Specifically, AA alleges that it is even
harmed by the termination dates in the Agreement and other GDS agreements.
8

As AA alleges, “Travelport and other GDS providers have staggered the
termination dates of their agreements with participating airlines, which
maximizes their bargaining leverage against each carrier.” Complaint ¶ 49.
Given these and numerous other paragraphs in the Complaint, AA cannot reasonably
argue that its action does not “arise out of” the Agreement. Additionally, the dismissal or
transfer of AA’s antitrust and tort claims is proper because federal courts routinely find that noncontractual claims, including those asserting actions sounding in antitrust and tort, can fall within
the scope of contractually-based forum selection clauses. See ABC Rental Systems, Inc. v.
Colortyme, Inc., 893 F. Supp. 636, 637 (E.D. Tex. 1995) (enforcing forum selection clause
against complaint asserting antitrust and RICO claims); Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 810
F.2d 1066 (11th Cir. 1987), aff’d, 487 U.S. 22 (1988) (reversing district court's ruling that breach
of warranty, fraud, and antitrust claims did not fall within forum selection clause); Bense v.
Interstate Battery Sys., 683 F.2d 718, 720 (2d Cir. 1982) (affirming district court's ruling that
antitrust claims fall within scope of forum selection clause); Universal Grading v. eBay, No. 08CV-3557, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49841, at *50-52 (E.D.N.Y. June 9, 2009) (antitrust claims fall
within scope of forum selection clause in user agreement); Ward Packaging, Inc. v. Schiffman,
No. 4:02-CV-518-A, 2002 WL 31086077, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Sep. 13, 2002) (granting motion to
dismiss and holding “tag-along” Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims did not defeat
operation of the parties’ forum selection clause mandating venue in Cook or Lake County,
Illinois).
In short, AA’s antitrust and other claims are subject to the parties’ agreed-to forum
selection clause because the allegations on which they are based reveal that the claims arise out
of the Agreement. The Court should therefore dismiss this action or transfer it to the forum the
parties have designated to hear such disputes, the Northern District of Illinois.

9

C.

The Court Should Award Travelport Its Fees and Costs Incurred As A
Result of Having To Enforce The Venue Selection Clause

Travelport is entitled to its fees and costs because the Agreement obligates AA to pay
Travelport for any fees and costs incurred to enforce, among other things, the venue provision of
the Agreement. As stated in Section 20 of the GIGADA:
EXPENSES
[AA] shall be liable for and agrees to reimburse Galileo
International for all attorneys’ fees and court costs and related
costs incurred by Galileo International to enforce this Agreement
or to seek remedies for breach of this Agreement by [AA].
TP APX 11.
Here, Travelport has incurred fees, court costs and related costs to enforce the venue
provision of the Agreement. Accordingly, Travelport is entitled to an award of such costs and
fees. See, e.g., Northview Christian Church Inc. v. Monolithic Constructors, Inc., No. 3:09-cv655M, 2010 WL 2605673, *3-4 (N.D. Tex. June 28, 2010) (enforcing forum selection clause and
awarding attorneys’ fees). In addition to being required by contract, such an award would be
particularly appropriate given the unambiguous venue provision in the Agreement, the wellestablished Fifth Circuit precedent mandating that such clauses are honored and the fact that AA
was fully aware of the venue clause and previously engaged in just this type of improper forum
selection.
V.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Travelport respectfully requests that the Court dismiss AA’s

complaint against Travelport pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. §1406(a) for
improper venue, or transfer this action to the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to §1406(a),
and, further, that the Court award Travelport its fees and costs incurred as a result of having to
bring the instant motion to enforce the forum selection clause in the Agreement.
10

Dated: May 25, 2011

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Walker C. Friedman
Walker C. Friedman
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)
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)
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
Suite 3700
190 South LaSalle Street
Chicago, Illinois 60603-3433
312.499.6700
312.499.6701 (Fax)
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
11

TRAVELPORT LIMITED and
TRAVELPORT, LP
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 25th day of May, 2011, 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/ Walker C. Friedman
Walker C. Friedman

12