855 F.3d 1057
9th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Hayley Hickcox‑Huffman paid US Airways a $15 checked‑bag fee for a domestic flight; her checked bag did not arrive on the carousel and was delivered the next day.
- She filed a putative class action seeking refund of baggage fees, alleging breach of contract (express and implied), unjust enrichment, and misrepresentation, among other claims.
- Plaintiff attached US Airways’ Terms of Transportation, which include a commitment to “provide on‑time baggage delivery,” a delayed‑baggage policy (‘‘every effort’’ to return within 24 hours), a cap on baggage damages, and a provision deeming travel to be acceptance of the terms.
- The district court dismissed the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) as preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) because the claims “related to” airline services.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reviewed preemption de novo and assessed whether plaintiff’s breach‑of‑contract claim was a privately assumed obligation (thus saved from ADA preemption under Wolens) or a state‑imposed obligation (preempted).
- The panel concluded plaintiff plausibly alleged an enforceable promise by US Airways to deliver baggage upon arrival and that her claim seeks enforcement of a voluntarily assumed contractual obligation; it reversed dismissal and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ADA preempts plaintiff’s claims for refunds of baggage fees | Hickcox‑Huffman: claim enforces US Airways’ voluntarily assumed promise of on‑time delivery in the Terms of Transportation, so it fits within Wolens’ savings clause and is not preempted | US Airways: claims “relate to” airline services and marketing and are therefore preempted by the ADA; contract language is not a clear promise to refund for delay | Court: Not preempted — plaintiff plausibly pleaded an enforceable promise (timely/on‑time delivery) voluntarily assumed by the airline; Wolens controls |
| Whether the Terms of Transportation created an enforceable contract promising delivery upon arrival | Plaintiff: the Terms constitute a unilateral offer accepted by travel and payment; the promise to “provide on‑time baggage delivery” is contractual consideration for the $15 fee | US Airways: language does not expressly promise a refund for delayed bags and contains limiting language (e.g., caps, "every effort") so no enforceable refund obligation | Court: The commitment to “provide on‑time baggage delivery” is a promise (not merely aspirational); plaintiff alleged offer, acceptance, consideration, breach, and damages |
| Whether absence of an express contractual remedy (refund) bars recovery | Plaintiff: restitution/disgorgement is a traditional contract remedy; refund of the $15 is a permissible restitutionary remedy for breach | US Airways: because no specific remedy is promised, plaintiff cannot demand a refund; limitation on consequential damages means only certain damages recoverable | Court: A contract can be enforceable without specifying a remedy; restitution is available and the $3,300 consequential‑damages cap does not bar recovery of the $15 fee |
| Whether alternative theories (implied covenant, unjust enrichment, misrepresentation) survive if contract claim is allowed | Plaintiff: asserted alternatives but offered to abandon them if contract claim succeeds | US Airways: sought to preserve arguments that other theories are preempted or redundant | Court: Did not decide alternative claims; because express breach‑of‑contract claim survives preemption, the court reversed dismissal and remanded for further proceedings on facts and class issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Morales v. Trans World Airlines, 504 U.S. 374 (1992) (ADA preemption language “related to” construed broadly to prohibit state laws affecting airline fares, routes, or services)
- American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219 (1995) (state common‑law breach‑of‑contract claims enforcing voluntarily assumed airline obligations are saved from ADA preemption)
- Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg, 134 S. Ct. 1422 (2014) (distinguishes voluntarily assumed contractual obligations from state‑imposed duties for ADA preemption analysis)
- Sanchez v. Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., 590 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2010) (interpreting Wolens in context of airline ticket pricing and commitments)
- Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind v. United Airlines Inc., 813 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 2016) (post‑Wolens/Northwest discussion of ADA preemption and airline disability/service regulations)