425 F.Supp.3d 524
D. Maryland2019Background
- Plaintiffs (Mexican nationals, guardians of children under 2, and Mexican residents) allege they paid a non‑reimbursed Mexican "tourism tax" on tickets from U.S. to Mexico that airlines collected as a ticket line‑item under a CANAERO agreement with Mexico.
- CANAERO Contract required airlines to collect the tax, identify exempt travelers (Mexican citizens, children under 2, residents of Mexico) and reimburse mistakenly collected taxes, but plaintiffs allege airlines routinely collected from exempt passengers and retained the funds.
- Plaintiffs sued eight airlines asserting RICO (§1962(c)/(d)), Sherman Act §1, and state common‑law claims (fraud, unjust enrichment, money had and received); prior related suits (including Almanza) led to earlier dismissals on similar theories.
- Defendants moved to dismiss or transfer to the Southern District of Georgia; plaintiffs sought conditional leave to amend.
- The court denied transfer, dismissed RICO and antitrust claims without prejudice for failure to plead an enterprise, agreement, or predicate fraud with requisite particularity, and dismissed the state common‑law claims with prejudice as preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA); leave to amend was denied without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) | Georgia is appropriate because related prior litigation occurred there | Plaintiffs chose Maryland; Georgia not clearly more convenient and no related case pending | Transfer denied; plaintiffs' forum choice entitled to weight |
| RICO enterprise and agreement (§1962(c)/(d)) | Airlines coordinated via CANAERO and meetings to collectively collect and retain the tax | Allegations show parallel conduct, not an agreement or organized enterprise | Dismissed: allegations insufficient to plead an association‑in‑fact enterprise or agreement |
| Mail/wire fraud predicates and pattern | Line‑item charges and nondisclosure amount to fraudulent misrepresentations/omissions; use of mails/wires completes predicates | Line‑items are truthful statements of charges; omissions are nonactionable absent a duty to disclose; allegations lack Rule 9(b) particularity | Dismissed: no adequately pleaded affirmative misrepresentation or actionable omission; Rule 9(b) and causation defects; thus no racketeering pattern |
| Sherman Act §1 conspiracy | Parallel, uniform practices, CANAERO membership, and allegedly against self‑interest conduct show a conspiracy | Conduct is conscious parallelism or independent business decisions; no plus factors | Dismissed: failure to allege specific agreement or plus factors to rule out independent conduct |
| ADA preemption of state common‑law claims | CANAERO terms and "outrageous" conduct create airline self‑imposed duties or fall outside ADA preemption | Tax collection relates to price/service and plaintiffs assert state remedies that would impose state obligations | Common‑law claims preempted by ADA and dismissed with prejudice |
| Leave to amend | Plaintiffs requested conditional leave | Defendants opposed; no proposed amended complaint provided | Denied without prejudice because plaintiffs did not proffer proposed amendments and amendment appeared futile on key deficiencies |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading requires factual enhancement beyond conclusory allegations to show agreement)
- Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938 (2009) (association‑in‑fact enterprise requires coordination beyond parallel criminal acts)
- Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (1985) (elements of a RICO §1962(c) claim)
- Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York, N.Y., 559 U.S. 1 (2010) (causation limits RICO standing where predicate acts involve third‑party decisions)
- American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219 (1995) (ADA preemption does not bar claims enforcing airlines’ self‑imposed contractual obligations)
- SD3, LLC v. Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., 801 F.3d 412 (4th Cir. 2015) (conclusory allegation that a collective decision was made insufficient to prove agreement)
- Almanza v. United Airlines, Inc., 851 F.3d 1060 (11th Cir. 2017) (prior dismissal for failure to plead RICO enterprise and pattern in similar tax collection context)
- GE Inv. Private Placement Partners II v. Parker, 247 F.3d 543 (4th Cir. 2001) (pleading standard and caution about inferring RICO from ordinary commercial wrongdoing)
- United Food & Commercial Workers Unions & Emp’rs Midwest Health Benefits Fund v. Walgreen Co., 719 F.3d 849 (7th Cir. 2013) (RICO does not punish parallel, uncoordinated fraud)