Banks v. American Airlines Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: October 29, 2019
• Docket: 3:19-cv-04026
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MICHELLE BANKS, Case No.19-cv-04026-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 19 10 AMERICAN AIRLINES, et al., Defendants. 11

12 13 Michele Banks alleges that American Airlines discriminated against her based on her race. 14 She also brings a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. American moves to dismiss 15 the complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal 16 jurisdiction and alternatively, 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 17 granted. 1 After consideration of the parties’ briefing and having had the benefit of oral argument 18 on October 10, 2019, the Court GRANTS American’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal 19 jurisdiction. As Ms. Banks’ claims do not arise from American’s contacts with California, Ms. 20 Banks has not met her burden of showing a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction over 21 American in California. 22 BACKGROUND 23 A. Complaint Allegations 24 Ms. Banks is a flight attendant for American. On August 22, 2017, as Ms. Banks was 25 preparing a flight from Charlotte, North Carolina to Miami, Florida for boarding, she noticed 26 several Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) violations, which she reported to the gate 27 1 agents. (Dkt. No. 12 at ¶ 12.) The gate agents reported the violations to the supervisor, who then 2 came onto the plane and confronted Ms. Banks in a “threatening manner” about reporting the 3 violations. (Id.) After the passengers had boarded the plane, the pilot removed Ms. Banks from 4 the flight, announcing over the intercom that she was the reason for the delay in take-off and that 5 she was being removed from her assignment. (Id.) 6 The pilot prepared a report regarding Ms. Banks’ removal from the flight, indicating that 7 she was removed for “no reason.” (Id. at ¶ 13.) Ms. Banks believes that she was removed from 8 duty and was intentionally embarrassed by the pilot because of her race. (Id.) When Ms. Banks 9 complained about the discrimination, American continued to discriminate against her, in part by 10 subjecting her to more drug tests than before, causing her to suffer such emotional distress she had 11 to be out on leave. (Id. at ¶ 14.) 12 Ms. Banks filed a written complaint with “her Supervisor, her Supervisor’s Supervisor, her 13 union representative, and American[’s] Human Resources department” (“HR”) detailing 14 American’s discriminatory treatment. (Id. at ¶ 15.) After reporting the incident to HR, it took 15 several months for Ms. Banks to receive a response. (Id. at ¶ 16.) HR ultimately represented that 16 “it had conducted and completed a full investigation and found no discrimination”; however, HR’s 17 response was brief and offered no explanation as to how they reached their conclusion. (Id. at 18 ¶17.) Further, none of the crew members who were present on the August 22 flight were 19 contacted by HR about the incident. (Id.) As a result of the incident, Ms. Banks developed and 20 was diagnosed with PTSD, anxiety, depression, and high blood pressure and had to take medical 21 leave from work until early January 2018. (Id. at ¶¶ 19, 24.) 22 In November 2017, “the Phoenix base manager of American Airlines, Barbara Trellia,” 23 met with Ms. Banks, her union representative, and the San Francisco base manager in Phoenix. 24 (Id. at ¶ 20.) Ms. Trellia told Ms. Banks that “she needed to forget what happened and come back 25 to work.” (Id. at ¶ 20 (internal quotation marks omitted).) Ms. Banks “flew home that night 26 distraught,” and was so upset that “it caused her to have an automobile accident.” (Id.) Ms. Banks 27 returned to work in January 2018, and on May 8, 2018, Ms. Bank’s supervisor and an HR staff 1 (Id. at ¶ 25.) Prior to filing the instant complaint, Ms. Banks filed an administrative complaint 2 with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) and received a “right-to-sue 3 letter” from DFEH and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). (Id. at ¶ 27.) 4 B. Procedural Background 5 Ms. Banks filed her original complaint in California state court, and American removed 6 that complaint to this Court based on diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (See 7 Dkt. No. 1 at 3.)2 8 American moved to dismiss the original complaint, (see Dkt. No. 10), and Ms. Banks filed 9 an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 12). The amended complaint asserts claims for race 10 discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), 11 California Government Code § 12940(a), and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Dkt. No. 12 12 at ¶¶ 28-45.) American filed the instant Motion to Dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction 13 or alternatively, failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (Dkt. No. 19 (citing 14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2); 12(b)(6)).) The motion is fully briefed and came before the Court for a 15 hearing on October 10, 2019. (Dkt. Nos. 19, 27, 33.) 16 DISCUSSION 17 American moves to dismiss on the grounds that the Court has no personal jurisdiction over 18 it because American is subject to neither general nor specific jurisdiction in California. 19 Alternatively, American moves to dismiss each count pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state 20 a claim. As discussed below, the Court finds that it does not have personal jurisdiction over 21 American Airlines, and thus, need not reach the merits of the Rule 12(b)(6) contention. 22 I. Rule 12(b)(2) Motion 23 On a defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), 24 the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the 25 defendant is proper. Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006). Where, as 26 here, the motion is based on written materials rather than an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff need

27 2 The requirements for diversity jurisdiction are met here in that Ms. Banks is a citizen of California and 1 only make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction to withstand the motion to dismiss. Mavrix 2 Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218, 1223 (9th Cir. 2011). California’s long-arm 3 statute allows the exercise of personal jurisdiction to the full extent permissible under the U.S. 4 Constitution. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 125 (2014); see also Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 5 410.10 (“[A] court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the 6 Constitution of this state or of the United States.”). The California statute is coextensive with 7 federal due process requirements, and thus, the jurisdictional analysis is the same. Schwarzenegger 8 v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004). 9 There are two categories of personal jurisdiction: general and specific. Bristol-Meyers 10 Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773, 1780 (2017). General jurisdiction over a 11 corporation is appropriate only in the forum where the corporation is incorporated or has its 12 principal place of business, or in an exceptional case where the corporation’s contacts with the 13 forum state are “so constant and pervasive as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum State.” 14 Daimler AG, 571 U.S. at 122 (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 15 U.S. 915, 919 (2011)). 16 For the court to exercise specific jurisdiction, the suit must arise out of or relate to the 17 defendant’s contacts with the forum state. Bristol-Meyers, 137 S. Ct. at 1780. “In other words, 18 there must be ‘an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, [an] 19 activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State and is therefore subject to the State’s 20 regulation.’” Id. (quoting Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 919). Thus, “[s]pecific jurisdiction is confined 21 to adjudication of issues deriving from, or connected with, the very controversy that establishes 22 jurisdiction.” Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 919. 23 A. General Personal Jurisdiction 24 A court has general personal jurisdiction over a corporate defendant in a forum where “the 25 corporation is fairly regarded as at home.” Daimler AG, 571 U.S. at 137 (quoting Goodyear 26 Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 924 (2011)). Absent “exceptional 27 circumstances,” a court has general jurisdiction over a corporate defendant (1) where it is 1 substantial, continuous, and systematic course of business” in a forum is insufficient for the court 2 to exercise general personal jurisdiction over the defendant in that forum. Id. 3 General jurisdiction over American is lacking in California because American is not 4 incorporated nor has its principal place of business in California. Indeed, Ms. Banks’ opposition 5 to the motion to dismiss does not even address general jurisdiction. Nonetheless, at oral argument 6 Ms. Banks argued that Daimler held that state of incorporation and principal place of business are 7 merely the “paradigm bases” for general jurisdiction. Her counsel asserted that the Court has 8 general jurisdiction over American because it has one of its “huge hubs” in the state of California. 9 If the Court were to accept this proffer, California would have general jurisdiction over nearly 10 every corporation in the United States, as many corporations have “huge hubs” in California. 11 “Merely engaging ‘in a substantial, continuous, and systematic course of business’ in a 12 particular jurisdiction is insufficient to permit the exercise of general personal jurisdiction there.” 13 Agher v. Envoy Air Inc., No. CV-18-6753-R, 2018 WL 6444888, at *1 (C.D. Cal. October 12, 14 2018) (citing Daimler AG, 571 U.S. at 137.) In Agher, for example, American was sued for 15 wrongful termination by a plaintiff domiciled in California. Id. The court held that the plaintiff 16 had not met its burden of showing general jurisdiction despite the allegations that “16% of 17 American’s flights involve departures from or arrivals in California. Approximately 8500 18 American employees… are based in California.” The court concluded that “American’s contacts 19 with California are certainly not so substantial as to make American ‘at home’ in California.” Id. 20 at 2. Ms. Banks has not identified any facts, alleged or otherwise, that would make this one of the 21 “exceptional case[s]” where American is essentially “at home” in California. American is an 22 international airline that “can scarcely be deemed at home” in all the locations to which it flies. 23 Daimler AG, 571 U.S. at n.20. 24 Ms. Banks has not made a prima facie showing of general personal jurisdiction over 25 American in California. 26 B. Specific Personal Jurisdiction 27 The Ninth Circuit has a adopted a three-part test for analyzing a claim of specific 1 consummate some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or perform some act by which he 2 purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking 3 the benefits and protections of its laws;” (2) the claim must “arise[ ] out of or relate[ ] to the 4 defendant’s forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must . . . be reasonable.” 5 Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802. The plaintiff has “the burden of satisfying the first two 6 prongs”; if it does so, the defendant must demonstrate that the court’s exercise of personal 7 jurisdiction would be unreasonable. Id. “If any of the three requirements is not satisfied, 8 jurisdiction in the forum would deprive the defendant of due process of law.” Pebble Beach Co., 9 453 F.3d at 1155 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 10 1. Purposeful Availment 11 Ms. Banks must first demonstrate that American purposefully availed itself of the forum 12 state—California. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802. She argues that American purposefully 13 availed itself of the forum via “its continuous flights into and out of California—which accounts 14 for approximately 13% of Defendant’s gross business dealings.” (Dkt. No. 27 at 10.) In addition, 15 8% of American’s workforce consists of California-based personnel. (Id.) American does not 16 address the “purposeful availment” prong of the specific jurisdiction analysis, however, 17 American’s contacts and presence in the state satisfy the first prong. See Roth v. Garcia Marquez, 18 942 F.2d 617, 621 (9th Cir. 1991) (“In order to have purposefully availed oneself of conducting 19 activities in the forum, the defendant must have performed some type of affirmative conduct 20 which allows or promotes the transaction of business within the forum state.”). American’s flights 21 to and from California indicate that it derives commercial benefit from the flight operations in the 22 state and creates a substantial connection with the forum. Id. The same activity also shows how 23 American purposefully directs its activities at residents in the forum. Id. 24 American’s lack of personal jurisdiction argument rests on the second prong of the 25 analysis; specifically, that Ms. Banks’ claims do not arise out of American’s California-related 26 activities. 27 2. Arising Out of Forum-Related Activities 1 The second prong requires Ms. Banks to establish that her claims arose from American’s 2 activities in California. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802. Ms. Banks fails to do so. Her 3 opposition baldly asserts that Ms. Banks experienced “continuous discrimination” by American 4 “arising out of [its] contacts with California” (Dkt. No. 27 at 11); however, nothing related to the 5 August 22 incident or any of the alleged subsequent discrimination arose from American’s 6 contacts with California. 7 Ms. Banks attests that she “was hired out of San Francisco, California in 1989” and 8 “[f]rom 2013 through December 2018,” she was a flight attendant based out of Arizona.3 (Dkt. 9 No. 28 at ¶ 2(a).) She alleges that the August 2017 incident occurred on a flight departing from 10 North Carolina to Florida. (Dkt. No. 12 at ¶ 12.) The subsequent acts of discrimination related to 11 the HR investigation occurred in Arizona, where the drug test also occurred. (Dkt. No. 19-6 at 3.) 12 Ms. Banks did reside in California and commuted to work in Arizona during the time in question 13 (see Dkt. No. 19-5, Ex. E at ¶ 8); however, the allegedly discriminatory conduct did not occur in 14 California and was otherwise unrelated to American’s contacts with the forum. The personal 15 jurisdiction inquiry considers the defendant’s contacts with the forum state itself, not the 16 defendant’s contacts with people who maintain their residence in the state. Walden v. Fiore, 571 17 U.S. 277, 285-86 (2014); see also Hatset v. Century 21 Gold Coast Realty, 649 F. App’x 400 (9th 18 Cir. 2016) (holding that personal jurisdiction did not exist where the only connection between the 19 defendant and California was plaintiff’s California residency). In addition, “the formation of a 20 contractual relationship with a resident is not, in itself, sufficient to create specific jurisdiction 21 over a non-resident.” Del Toro v. Atlas Logistics, No. 1:12-CV-01535-AWI-BAM, 2013 WL 22 796593, at *4 (E.D. Cal. March 4, 2013) (rejecting argument that defendant “availed itself to [the 23 court’s] personal jurisdiction” by “reaching across state lines to contract employment services 24 from [p]laintiff and other California residents”) (citing Burger King, 471 U.S. at 478). Thus, even 25 if Ms. Banks entered into her employment contract with American in California, such 26

27 3 Ms. Banks attests that she was transferred to San Francisco, California in December 2018, “where [she] remain[s] formally based while out on leave as a result of debilitating anxiety and PTSD stemming from 1 circumstance alone is insufficient to hail American into a California court for conduct that 2 occurred outside the forum. See Agher, 2018 WL 644888 at *2. 3 Because the alleged discrimination did not arise out of American’s forum-related activities, 4 the Court does not have specific jurisdiction over American. Accordingly, the Court does not 5 address the reasonableness of the exercise of jurisdiction. See Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802 6 (noting that the burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate unreasonableness only if plaintiff 7 satisfies the first two prongs); see also Pebble Beach Co., 453 F.3d at 1155 (“If any of the three 8 requirements is not satisfied, jurisdiction in the forum would deprive the defendant of due process 9 of law.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 10 Ms. Banks’ insistence that if the court fails to find personal jurisdiction, it will contribute 11 to a pattern of “unprosecuted constitutional violations” (Dkt. No. 27 at 11) misapprehends 12 personal jurisdiction. Courts in other states have personal jurisdiction over Ms. Banks’ claims, 13 thus the claims can be raised in those forums. For example, a Delaware or Texas district court 14 would have general jurisdiction over American. A North Carolina district court might have 15 specific jurisdiction over American because that is where the original incident occurred. See 16 Bristol Meyers, 137 S. Ct. at 1780. Further, the suit could likely be brought in Arizona, as Ms. 17 Banks’ “base hub” was in Phoenix, Arizona during the time of all of the allegations contained in 18 her complaint. But Ms. Banks may not sue American in a California court merely because it is 19 more convenient for her and her counsel. This Court cannot exercise specific personal jurisdiction 20 over American Airlines. 21 CONCLUSION 22 As there is no general jurisdiction over American in California and Ms. Banks’ claims do 23 not arise out of American’s contacts with California, American’s motion to dismiss for lack of 24 personal jurisdiction is GRANTED. The dismissal is without leave to amend as at oral argument 25 Ms. Banks was unable to identify any additional facts related to the claims currently pled that 26 would meet her prima facie personal jurisdiction burden. The dismissal is also without prejudice 27 to Ms. Banks bringing her claims in a state with personal jurisdiction over American. As Ms. 1 Banks did not ask the case to be transferred to a court with personal jurisdiction, the Court 2 || declines to exercise its discretion to do so. 3 This Order disposes of Docket No. 12. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: October 29, 2019 1 ne □ CQUELINE SCOTT CORLE 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28