Brown v. Horizon Air

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: November 1, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00932
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 PERVENIA BROWN, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-932 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S 9 COMPLAINT v. 10 HORIZON AIR, 11 Defendant. 12 13 1. INTRODUCTION 14 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Horizon Air’s motion to 15 dismiss Plaintiff Pervenia Brown’s complaint. Dkt. No. 8. The Court has considered 16 the papers submitted in support of and opposition to the motion, and being 17 otherwise informed, and DISMISSES Brown’s complaint for the reasons explained 18 below. 19 2. BACKGROUND 20 Brown alleges that she suffered a back injury “due to the rough landing of 21 Horizon Air Flight #2347” from Boise, Idaho to Seattle, Washington on January 23, 22 2021. Dkt. No. 4 ¶¶ 3-4. Although Brown does not specify any causes of action, she 23 1 alleges that she “is legally entitled to recover” damages because of Horizon’s 2 “negligent rough landing[.]” Id. ¶ 7. She also alleges that Horizon Air owed her a

3 “duty to use ordinary care in handling her claim[,]” but that it failed to cover “the 4 full cost of [her] medical expenses” and pain and suffering. Id. ¶ 14-15. Brown seeks 5 one million dollars “in compensatory damages for emotional pain and suffering, 6 inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment in life.” Id. ¶ 16. 7 3. DISCUSSION 8 3.1 The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Brown does not plead jurisdiction. Because federal courts have “limited 9 jurisdiction,” they presumably “lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears 10 affirmatively from the record.” DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 11 (1991). Federal courts may possess either diversity or federal-question jurisdiction. 12 Diversity jurisdiction exists “where the amount in controversy” exceeds 13 $75,000 and the parties are of diverse citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Brown names 14 only one Defendant, Horizon Air, headquartered in Washington. Dkt. No. 4 ¶ 2. 15 Because Brown resides in Tukwila, Washington, id. ¶ 1, the parties are not diverse. 16 Federal-question jurisdiction covers “all civil actions arising under the 17 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. To qualify, a 18 federal question must be presented on the face of the complaint, not as an 19 anticipated defense. Rivet v. Regions Bank of Louisiana, 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998). 20 Courts call this requirement as the “well-pleaded complaint rule.” 13D Charles Alan 21 Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 3566 (3d ed.). 22 23 1 Although Brown does not identify specific causes of action, her claims sound 2 in negligence. She says the flight ended in a “negligent rough landing” and Horizon

3 Air owed her “a duty of ordinary care.” Dkt. No. 4 ¶¶ 7, 14. The Federal Aviation 4 Act (FAA) does not create a federal cause of action for personal injury suits, Martin 5 ex rel. Heckman v. Midwest Exp. Holdings, Inc., 555 F.3d 806, 808 (9th Cir. 2009), 6 and Brown raises no other relevant federal statute or standard. As a result, the 7 Court reads Brown’s claims to “replicate a garden variety state-law tort claims 8 case[.]” Brown v. Alaska Air Grp., Inc., No. CV-11-0091-WFN, 2011 WL 2746251, at

9 *5 (E.D. Wash. July 14, 2011). Thus, Brown’s complaint does not plead a federal 10 question, and so she fails to establish subject matter jurisdiction under the well- 11 pleaded complaint rule. 12 3.2 Even if the Court had subject jurisdiction over this matter, Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred. 13 Brown alleges that she was injured on January 23, 2021. As noted above, the 14 Court construes her claim as sounding in negligence. The statute of limitations for a 15 negligence claim in Washington is three years. RCW 4.16.080(2). Brown filed her 16 complaint on June 25, 2024, which was five months too late to be considered timely. 17 18 3.3 Amendment would be futile. 19 Courts are not to “dismiss a pro se complaint without leave to amend unless 20 ‘it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by 21 amendment.’” Rosati v. Igbinoso, 791 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting 22 Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012)). Leave to amend would be 23 1 futile, as further factual embellishment would not cure the deficiencies identified 2 above.

3 4. CONCLUSION 4 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Brown’s complaint and directs the Clerk 5 to close this case. 6 Dated this 1st day of November, 2024. 7 A 8 Jamal N. Whitehead 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23