Julian Almanza v. United Airlines, Inc.
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4377
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Mexican law exempted Mexican nationals (and certain others) from a Mexico Tourism Tax that airlines collected on tickets for flights originating outside Mexico; the Contract between Mexico, CANAERO, and airlines designated these exemptions and established remittance/refund procedures.
- Plaintiffs (Mexican nationals) allege the defendant airlines routinely charged the Tax to exempt passengers, buried the charge on tickets, concealed refund rights, retained the monies, and reinvested proceeds—resulting in multimillion-dollar wrongful takings.
- Plaintiffs sued under RICO (18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(a), (c), (d)), alleging a pattern of mail and wire fraud predicates, and asserting the airlines formed an associated‑in‑fact enterprise (via express or tacit agreement, CANAERO membership, the Contract, and parallel conduct).
- The district court dismissed the RICO claims for failure to plead an enterprise or a pattern of racketeering activity and denied leave to amend as futile; plaintiffs appealed.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding plaintiffs’ allegations showed only parallel conduct without the additional factual enhancement required to plausibly infer an agreement and therefore failed to plead an associated‑in‑fact enterprise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs plausibly alleged a RICO "enterprise" (associated‑in‑fact) among airlines | Alleged tacit or express agreement to charge exempt travelers; parallel unlawful conduct plus enhancements (CANAERO meetings, Contract secrecy) shows a meeting of minds | Alleged facts show only parallel, independent conduct; no factual allegations identify an agreement or relationships governing joint action | Dismissal affirmed; plaintiffs failed to plead relationships among associates required for an associated‑in‑fact enterprise |
| Whether parallel unlawful conduct (breach of Contract + fraud) suffices to infer agreement | Unlawful parallel breaches of the Contract provide the "further factual enhancement" required by Twombly to infer agreement | Parallel unlawful acts remain equally consistent with independent conduct and do not by themselves plausibly establish conspiracy or enterprise | Rejected; breaking a single wrongful scheme into component "unlawful" acts does not cure the pleading deficiency |
| Whether trade‑association participation (CANAERO) and related meetings plausibly show collusion | Membership and repeated interactions with CANAERO (responses to Alcocer, INM officials) demonstrate coordinated conduct and awareness—supporting an inference of agreement | Trade association membership and joint meetings are consistent with lawful coordination or independent silence; do not show decisionmaking relationships to form an enterprise | Rejected; CANAERO involvement amounted to parallel conduct without factual allegations of a coordinating mechanism or relations that made the group a continuing unit |
| Whether denial of leave to amend was erroneous/futile | Plaintiffs had limited opportunity and the proposed amended complaint added CANAERO detail; they should have another chance to cure | Proposed amendment failed to remedy the core deficiency (no factual basis for a meeting of minds); further amendment would be futile | Denial affirmed; proposed amended complaint was futile and plaintiffs did not identify how they could cure the pleading defects |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (parallel conduct requires additional factual enhancement to plausibly infer an agreement)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: conclusory allegations insufficient)
- Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (2009) (structural elements required for an associated‑in‑fact enterprise)
- United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (1981) (definition and functioning of an association‑in‑fact enterprise)
- Am. Dental Ass'n v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2010) (Twombly pleading principles apply in RICO context; parallel conduct insufficient)
- Simpson v. Sanderson Farms, Inc., 744 F.3d 702 (11th Cir. 2014) (rejecting conclusory market models as implausible on Rule 12(b)(6))
- Starrett, 55 F.3d 1525 (11th Cir. 1995) (enterprise/conspiracy relationship and proof via circumstantial evidence)
- Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 553 U.S. 639 (2008) (discussing RICO predicate act requirements)