Pons v. Arubaanse Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V.
1:17-cv-22008
S.D. Fla.Mar 29, 2018Background
- Pons purchased Aruba Airlines tickets in 2013 and 2014 for flights from Miami to Venezuela and paid full fare directly to the airline.
- At boarding on both occasions she was required to pay an $80 "exit fee" that was not disclosed prior to departure and was not in the Contract of Carriage.
- Pons sued on behalf of herself and a putative class for breach of contract seeking relief for the undisclosed exit fee practice.
- Aruba Air moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) on multiple grounds: lack of CAFA jurisdictional facts, contractual two-year limitations, lack of class standing, ADA preemption, and that the Contract of Carriage notified passengers departure taxes weren’t included.
- The Contract of Carriage contains an express two-year limitations clause for actions related to carriage. Pons’ latest covered arrival date was September 19, 2014; the complaint was filed May 30, 2017.
- The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice as time-barred under the Contract of Carriage and did not reach the other defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CAFA jurisdictional facts were sufficiently pled | Pons asserts class action status (implied CAFA) | Aruba Air contends CAFA jurisdictional facts are not pleaded | Not reached (court resolved case on statute of limitations) |
| Whether the Contract of Carriage's two-year limitations clause applies | Pons: Florida law should apply and Fla. Stat. §95.03 prevents shortening the five-year period | Aruba Air: Contract sets a two-year limitations period; Florida law only governs computation, not replacement of contractual term | Held for Aruba Air — contractual two-year period governs; claim time-barred |
| Whether state law (Florida) can override the contractual limitations in a federally-regulated air contract | Pons: Florida law prevents shortening statutory periods | Aruba Air: Federal law and DOT/CFR permit airlines to set contractual limits; state law does not extend federal contracts | Held for Aruba Air — federal regulatory scheme permits contractual limitations; state law does not displace them |
| Whether the court should reach other defenses (standing, ADA preemption, notice) | Pons: asserted standing and alternative arguments on merits | Aruba Air: raised standing, ADA preemption, and notice defenses | Court did not decide — dismissed on statute of limitations; other arguments not reached |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading more than formulaic recitation)
- American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219 (airline contractual terms enforceable within federal regulatory scheme)
- Life Sciences, Inc. v. Emery Air Freight Corp., 341 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (federally regulated carriage contract governs rights and liabilities)