American Airlines Inc v. Travelport Limited et al

Filing 85

MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for Failure to State a 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,
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

TRAVELPORT LIMITED AND TRAVELPORT, LP’S
RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED
On May 25, 2011, Defendants Travelport Limited and Travelport, LP (collectively
“Travelport”) moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss Plaintiff
American Airlines, Inc.’s (“AA’s”) original Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. On June 9, 2011, while Travelport’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss was
still pending, AA filed its First Amended Complaint, rendering Travelport’s motion moot. See,
e.g., Nowell v. Coastal Bend Surgery Ctr., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10005, at **1-2 (S.D. Tex.

1

2011) (amended complaint renders earlier filed motion to dismiss moot). The parties stipulated
that the defendants will file new motions to dismiss against the operative complaint. Stipulation
Concerning Response to Travelport’s and Orbitz’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss the
Complaint [Doc. No. 76].
Travelport now moves to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. In support, Travelport’s
memorandum will show that AA has failed to allege facts establishing the alleged relevant
product market -- a single-brand market consisting of Travelport services to Travelport travel
agents. Because AA’s entire complaint depends on this implausible and legally deficient singlebrand product market, the complaint must be dismissed.
Travelport thus requests that the Court dismiss all of AA’s claims against Travelport for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, as explained more fully in the
accompanying memorandum in support.

Dated: June 27, 2011

Respectfully submitted,
/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)
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

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
TRAVELPORT LIMITED and
TRAVELPORT, LP

Of Counsel to Travelport Defendants:

/s/ Walker C. Friedman
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)

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 27th day of June, 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