American Airlines Inc v. Travelport Limited et al

Filing 37

MOTION to Dismiss Rule 12(b)(6) for Failure to State Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted filed by Travelport Limited, Travelport, LP (Friedman, Walker) .

IN THE 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-00244-Y

TRAVELPORT LIMITED AND TRAVELPORT, LP’S
RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO
STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED
Defendants Travelport Limited and Travelport, LP (collectively “Travelport”) file their
Rule 12(b)6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and
in support thereof would respectfully show the Court as follows:
1.

Plaintiff American Airlines, Inc.’s (“AA”) antitrust claims filed against Travelport
are factually and legally defective, and should be dismissed for failure to state a
claim: (a) AA has not alleged and cannot allege facts establishing Travelport’s
dominance of the U.S. global distribution system (“GDS”) market; (b) AA has
failed to allege facts establishing a single-brand market consisting of Travelport
services to Travelport travel agents; (c) AA cannot rely on foreign markets, the
activities in which this Court has no jurisdiction over, to claim a monopolistic
share or unlawful monopolistic activities on the part of Travelport; and (d) AA
1

has failed to allege facts establishing exclusionary conduct on Travelport’s part.
2.

AA’s conspiracy claims against Travelport should be dismissed for failure to state
a claim because (a) Travelport’s and Orbitz’s common control makes it
impossible for those entities to have engaged in an illegal conspiracy; and (b)
alleging a conspiracy between Travelport and “unnamed industry participants” is
insufficient to state a claim.

3.

AA’s state law claims of tortious interference should be dismissed; the Airline
Deregulation Act preempts them.

Travelport thus requests that the Court dismiss all of AA’s claims for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted, as explained more fully in the accompanying
memorandum in support.

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)

2

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
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

3