631 F. App'x 657
11th Cir.2015Background
- Plaintiff Xiaoyun “Lucy” Lu was removed from AirTran flight 604 after a gateboard confrontation about her cell phone; she also experienced a continuous liquid leak from an overhead air vent that landed on her.
- Flight attendants allegedly provided paper towels, were verbally abusive, threatened to remove her, and a security officer escorted her off the plane without explanation or a copy of AirTran’s exclusion policy.
- Two days after the incident Lu sued AirTran in federal court alleging negligence, slander, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent hiring/training/supervision, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and claims related to the leaking air vent.
- The district court dismissed Lu’s Second Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and found many claims preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA), 49 U.S.C. § 41713; Lu appealed.
- On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed: it held crew courteousness/boarding‑related claims preempted by the ADA; contract claims preempted under Wolens; removal claims failed on the pleadings; air‑vent maintenance claims survived preemption but were dismissed for failure to state certain tort claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state‑law claims concerning crew rudeness and boarding conduct are preempted by the ADA | Lu contends crew misconduct gives rise to state torts (slander, emotional distress, etc.) | AirTran argues these claims “relate to” airline services (boarding, passenger handling) and are ADA‑preempted | Court: Preempted — crew courteousness and boarding‑procedure claims fall within ADA "services" and are preempted |
| Whether removal from the plane gives rise to tort or contract claims despite 49 U.S.C. § 44902(b) | Lu argues removal was wrongful and not justified by safety concerns; seeks tort and contract remedies | AirTran contends § 44902(b) grants broad discretion to refuse transport and illegal state‑law claims are preempted | Court: Tort claims fail for failure to plead removal was arbitrary or capricious; contract/implied covenant claims preempted under Wolens because they require inquiry into federal rules |
| Whether state claims based on leaking air vent are preempted by the ADA | Lu contends injuries from leaking vent are state torts not addressing airline services | AirTran argued broadly that many passenger complaints relate to services | Court: Not preempted — personal‑injury claims from aircraft operation/maintenance survive ADA preemption analysis |
| Whether remaining state claims (negligent infliction, negligent hiring/training/supervision, IIED, slander) were plausibly pleaded | Lu asserts emotional distress, negligent supervision, outrageous conduct, and defamatory statements | AirTran argues pleadings lack required elements (physical impact, prior knowledge, extreme conduct, falsity) | Court: Dismissed — Lu failed to plead physical injury/unreasonable endangerment, specific employer knowledge, extreme outrageousness, or falsity/publication supporting defamation |
Key Cases Cited
- Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (broad ADA preemption standard adopted)
- Branche v. AirTran Airways, Inc., 342 F.3d 1248 ("services" includes boarding and passenger handling)
- Wolens v. American Airlines, Inc., 513 U.S. 219 (contract claims not preempted only if confined to voluntary undertakings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Cerqueira v. American Airlines, Inc., 520 F.3d 1 (§ 44902(b) affords broad carrier discretion; review limited)
- Koutsouradis v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 427 F.3d 1339 (passenger handling/courteousness related to airline services)
- Wiersum v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 785 F.3d 483 (standard for Rule 12(b)(6) review)