Document 16
Filed 07/29/2008
Page 1 of 18
I=111 1'I' \I^O. All III\. IZltllll[Z ,L II \\II'IO\ T' I'llll II' I \ I \I\^-I' \ I I I\^O\, (:il 13;^r. A,^^. ^?-} i 1'w>
1^-Ill;ll^'
I`:Ili^lll^l^^ltt^ll^l^il ^! X11'^I?1i^11^^11111111111,,^'^?C2l
' 6 1 Attomc, lot 1?L I^ciidl mt I)1 1 l\ AII: I I \ I :". 1\C
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN n I S I RICT OF CALIFORNI A (SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION)
13 14
15
S}'1 NCER R. i1£1C MtrLLEN suing ind1%,idually and on behalf of all a hers similarly situated, Plain
Case No. CV 08-1523 (JSW) CLASS ACTION DEFENDANT DELTA AIR LINES, INC.'S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS [FED. R. 12(b)(6)1
Date: Time: Courtroom: September 26, 2008 9:00 A.M. 2 (17`t' Floor)
17 18
DELTA AIR LINES, INC., and defendant Does I through 100, inclusive.
Defendants.
20 21 22 23 24 25
27 28
lll I J 1, ^ ^"i i'! ; iWT i
Case 3:08-cv-01523-JSW
Document 16
Filed 07/29/2008
Page 2 of 18
T k131.V O( OV I t:A I S 1"I I\I1Z()I)l ( II()\ \\I)^,L l\IARYOF
I (IL \ \I\1IylW\ 1A ()I I l \(:I I'llO\ I ()R ( I- \I\l^, 1^ \^l D O\ ^[ I I -I\Il'O^( I) l \f)l l^ l .A_hI\(^I^ 131 \IR C \IZIM IZl^ r)OI ^, \Ol _AI'1'I 1 III RI_ .......................................................................... 3
8
I'[ \1\ f I I I ( 11 \1 I I \(j] I'O TITr COI T rCTIC>\OF -I ail \1C \\ \(_)\-I\1\11(;[: ^\I I . \\ IS -IRIA1_A11 D 1O" DkL,TA' S N^^ICLS. 1ZO1 H-_S AND SER \J(^ I,.
8
PLAINTI I I WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO SLI:I\'A REFUND OF THE NON-I11VLM16R:'1NT TAX BY NOT PURSUING THE REFUND WITHIN TI tI_. ONE-FEAR CONTRACTUAL PERIOD ............................13 CONCT 1 S ION AND REQUESTED RELIEF ........................................................14
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
27 28 ^,i ^,1, 1k,
PP(aP I
Case 3:08-cv-01523-JSW
Document 16
Filed 07/29/2008
Page 3 of 18
TAI )I I ()I \t 1 11( )(\) I 111 11
2007 U.S. Di t. LI XIS 1')1 -4 ( D. Hawaii March
I1.11'11( Buck v..1r7ic1-i,-,-tn A
07) ....................................
47o1.3d29(1tLCi
as v. Trans tfcvid. I irlin, ,.
............................................................................
12
( )H
160 F,3d 1259 (9th Or. 1998) ................................................................................ icntal Airlines, Inc. v. 11, ilicr, 1999 U.S. Dist. L I X IS 16377, at * 16-17 (C.D. Cal. March 29, 1999)..
In re Air Transportation /,c T -n- L a atzon, 37 F. Supp. 2d 1133 (1). Ntilzn. 999.) ................................................................. In re American Airlines, Inc. Privacy Liti,,, // roan, 370 F. Supp. 2d 552 (N.D. Tex. 2005
Lehman v. G}SAir Group, Inc.. 0 F. Supp. 912 (`;.D.'\.^ . 1996) ........................................................................... Alorales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (1002) ....................................................................................................8
Kr) 1t C' 1
1V H,
Iloto>1
71-,"],,/ l
l ^,
"1]-
21
22 U.,S.
. 1?^ ^. ( t. 1)(2
.....................
//' 11(,- v, Cr)11//)'1r/iu .Ifc^'( ! /r/ (/( _ l i i;/( io1 / .^-1.. \o. C\ (' -/' -7 11P) ^ 4 W.D. Coil. \I^ii li 23
1
'4 I .? (1 2 ` 4 (4th Or
}
n
IJI I l 1 ^ I? I I'L's I;Jtill I I
I'J'( Wl I ' )I "Ilt)1^1^^,11^^
11
Case 3:08-cv-01523-JSW
Document 16
Filed 07/29/2008
Page 4 of 18
1 I (, ^. A\ . ;,1 -4-^ t I)I, 1.1 I \
\.ll. Cal.
27, 1997)-
12
7
rcdcml 9
^l^ItUtc
1=^ C()(ic of l^cdcr^ti Rc^ LIILltik)n,^
250.0 b) ..................................................................................................................12
St^itc-,
10 49 Um ic( 1
11 12
Code
14501(c)(1) ...............................................................................................................9
4 1713(b) ...................................................................................................................1
14 15
17
18
20 21 22
24
11
20
27
1)I
1 \> IZI I'1 `i l'^lill l I `, ^l I' Pi kI i (d `.I( I l
I ^) O l e '^. I I
Case 3:08-cv-01523-JSW
Document 16
Filed 07/29/2008
Page 5 of 18
IN IIMM ( VIO \ \\I) st NUL\K1 OI- W(J NiEN F
1 Jcly, III`_ that b1, X1,11111 ?c1;11111; lip t'l^' \Ie\l^'.ll`. ^i^ll- II111111^!r;lllt T;I\ tr ll\^^^ ;l
e,II Ip1c,,I i'\ the .AIrblle I)cI II,IIIk)II _Ac t 5; ^}^encer Ale\It JIcn 1--I'l.IintiiI-oi
1111110-,' H
\IeAIlIII"I), 1
ec'nI,"I
111'11 be Illerek
to) elIfOICe
I
Ildcrt:llvi1"" I)c ta. t P1,11,11 111 I-, Oph^),itiOn Io I )^-,ICndant -, AIk't1011
to)
1)i
8
9
Plaintiff seeks to enforce - a c
ent rot t( clmiLc c,,cniptpa,,^cn^crs tl^e \1c^ical^
Non-tn-imi,-,r,tnt Tax - appears nowhere in Dclt,l International Contrll,:t of Calri^^,c.' Plaintiff nevertheless maintains that Delta ingVicitly undertook this commitment by .,explicitly incorporat[ing]into its International Contract of Carriage a Mexican i1^Itutc w=hich, Plaintiff asserts, prohibits Delta from imposing the Tax on exempt passengers. (PI. Br. at 8.) This argument cannot succeed because the contractual language on w=hich Plaintiff hinges his entire argument - found in Rule 1(C)(4) in Delta's International Contract of Carriage - merely states that the provisions in the International Contract of Carriage shall not apply "to the extent they are contrary to applicable laws, governmental regulations, or orders ...." This language has no application here because it applies only in those situations in which a specific provision in tllc International Contract of G11-1-i, - is in direct ,
20 c
21
"applicable Lm , govrernment re,,ul,ltions, or order,.
Significantly, Plaintiff
has not identified am specific section in Delta's lntcrnational Contract of Carriage which coiq!l (t^ ^sif/i au} provision in Mexican Inw. Moreo-^ ci, it is manifestly unreasonable and contrary to the directiv e ill 1»l^ i-i( ail; lir//n, ^. line, v. It F)/,^li,. 513 U.S. 219, 232-33 ch prohibit, breach ofcuntract c.lawi; ha^cd (-)Ti 1:1vx. preenleW-) - for l'I;Iillii f f t^^ om irllc Rule 1( sternal to fhc
22 23 24
!t^l t^^ i1111,11c ^^^ erg l^clta l^,l,^en per ^^ iill I
V, I \bibits 1 and 2 to the Declaration of J. Scott \1e ( 1,mi in suhl)^,rt De icnclant Delta Air Lines, Inc.', Ah)tion To Di,nli,^,. (DIvL ().)
28
Case 3:08-cv-01523-JSW
Document 16
Filed 07/29/2008
Page 6 of 18
^cll[cll',il`il tl'a_ l)cll,l 1^;illc(l tc ^(^I ?ll^^w ''.A 1111 .l
rlllllcatal I,nv_ rca;ilati^^n ^
Gilcclll^`C hl, ^^a!'=.11 l^^^aU^t
il, chal^cllac
Io
1)clta
^(_'ll^'
ticil
cl tll^'
;ti ',)
I^l\
r 3IC1'tI C, I(^ :IiI :III II1:, "I"j I'1I':C,. It^lll^_, , OI ,cIv I, c^
I PI Iii
A, ^cl 1l)I^th Iit I)c lI^t',
0ii(TCtl111'' hllc(.c^(llcetlUlllJtthe VcAI
11
^t)n- llllllll^lailt
ta',dearlyl^
p r ice of the
l ii/i(j
i)cltZs
.1110
prices becau,c t hl Tax is collcctc( 1
I^ part (^( t
he
ptllc h,i,c
l?tL^,ClI_'cl
tiAc t
8
is "rel- ted lo" and intertwincd vv 1 th the sa le. price acid i,,tt-incc ref the }m cis _ r ti^l:ct^. I ,
9 (Opc imi Br. at 4 , 7 -8.) Morcov cr, collcetloii of the T,i\ i, "r( r;tt( °J to Delhi', route, and
10
services hcc^iTisc the Tax is collected only on routes between Mexico and other ccuiitrics,
and is part of the services provided by Delta to its customers to facilitate the flow of
12 passengers through iMcyican airp(,rts by eliminating the need for passengers to stand in 13 14
line at Mexican airports to pa} the I ax prior to cntcring the country. (N. at 4, 8.) finally, Plaintiff fails to rebut Delta's argument that Plaintiff waived his right to
15 seek a refund of the Tax by failing to request the refund within one year from his dates of 16 travel. Plaintiff relies upon the general language in Rule 90(A) of Delta's International 17 Contract of Carriage, which states that Delta will issue refunds on unused or partially used 18 tickets -uf 'ect to this rule (Pl. Br. at 2-3, 16-17). However, there is no provision
anv where in Rule 90 (or elsewhere in Delta's International Contract of Cirri.ILe) which
20
that Delta will not issue a refund on a ticket that has been fully used, if a refund is due on the ticket for some Tc^i,oii. Moreover. the heciiic l^lli<^u
22 23
Contract of C i// refund collcetcd nn n(,III 11111
1( lv^,.
lc )f)((
b) - e\l,re'Ay vv ho
III,, tick "I, Clod
24 claim 25
1O l,c Cv I111^1 frnni
lhO, c
Ruic
(111((
)(h) c1c,lrf% inil)(); (,s upoll OcIt'l tine
dtity 1o, icltmd th((,c 1a^c^ t(, thc ha^,cl^^cl (%v hc(hcr(,r not the delve( i, o-,edj, -iihjcct ((nly to the Icgtlilenicnt th,it the imi,( ;u1^l^^it a timelyre(iuc,t k,i tlli, rcfall(I, ^tmI
27 must subnI]I )h)() r I III, "v(Allft ^, t^ilu .
I Ll Apt'! I'i'I LT1 I L1 1',. ^)I TOR T O1 ',1(f11( ,( (;))^;A;1,
Case 3:08-cv-01523-JSW
Document 16
Filed 07/29/2008
Page 7 of 18
1n ^unl. I'I,linti't h,I^ I^tilc^i t(^ ^^..r
1;1i1^1 ul^(^n vyhich r cli^fc`tT1
( t^l'ltIIII ^tII
C
11
utc^i..In^f
.·!t I
I)cft.t
lil^cl
Il^l^^
Ic^P
t I It
I'^aIIIII
thI-
:I^11
Inc
U^il.' °^ .
l1F. A \RRMN !i 01-F,\S FX( FV 1 MN I OR ( 1. MIS B \S1,.1) O\ SFI I^11'O^h:L) I_ AI)ER I \1.1\(;S B) '+111 ('.\IllztER DOF,, NOT APPLY S -, 111-IR
9
N It imiff tries to avoid dismissal ofhi, cl,tiiii for )rcucir o FcOntr^tctbypointing to
t o the narro^ exception to AD \ prccmption rcco1Lniicd ire runner°rcan Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens,
513 U.S. at 228, for breach ofihe airline's "sell=imposed undertakings." (Pl. Br. at 5.) However. this argurncnt must be rejected because neither Plaintiff s CON-i r^i_ W,, r, nor his opposition brief, 1(icnti tics a specific -self-imposed uticicrtuking" by Delta that allegedly has been breached.
The COMPLArNr alleges only that Delta's International Contract of Carriage ``contains a promise to collect only ta\cs rtnd fees actually due from each passenger and o the appropriate gov=ernment authority all taxes and fees as due,- but fails to allege
where such ``promise " can be found . (Comm \i\ I' 3 .) Plaintiff's brief likewise fails to i
21
Cart-129C M
oppll, °able e-rcept to
(W I-)/o/('1 ",,
/11('
('_Wnl
thf: ,,
th Pl' ore contiarv to
coIlt
1-11110N,^ll
Ill
\V hlch
c\ cilt
the
r^ l rv law.
21,,rc III 111()n ^)I wdcr^i^tll I^rcv^ti1.
(I ulph^1,1, ^Iddc(i.) ('I;IitltiCl c^^ntcn(i, th'tt hcc to>c of
2--5 jjthi, I^ul^^u^t^^c . i)clt,t I^url^(^rlc(IIvin^lu»c^l tlhr^n it,cllthc ^_,I^li,lti^,lt t^, ^,hcv ;tll ^Il^i^lic^thlc
?^, "1^nv; ^tn^l rc^^ul^tti^^n _,_ includ n^_t the ^Icyic^tn Gcncr^ti L
l^l I,I ^'^,]'I I'I1 ISI?II I I`^ ^i I'{'ttl-'I t?I \ittlft lt^l^l^AII
Case 3:08-cv-01523-JSW
Document 16
Filed 07/29/2008
Page 8 of 18
11 ft,r T^'lll'^' 1111,11%`^
! ,,t(+ of UOIIII ,1^'[ a
^i'^ Al^,lll I I ^ II -t i ^;tr^
11-1 I)"It;I
I^-`l:;t^^ ,lllA 1,1\\ 111 111'
ll. III ^',Illlll^ 111'
l ^lll,
.l l^'_Ulll^'i'^' ^,lllllt^l
^UC^ ^'c^l
i^^^;I:L ^
Ills I,lll
.AIL', 1il ICI-I^
R^'1
J1l1^11,^, II
,tll)ht'rt I'I,IIii11Il , Ik 1.1(11C I ^( 1!1111' ll^,' 11t,11. I3\ iI, I^I;IIIi I;Ill^_, ll,l-, ^: . UI^tI ,I,III,
^!I)lv
1`x'1vv ^'cl1 ,lil ^'\I?1^>^ I^II^v 1,11111 lil Ille Illlel^il^ltltlll;ll ^ I ( Ill l,l^e ;tlld ^)tllcl ,II`1)II",II)i
i,tt,II t, I'I,tiIIti!I--, vv1111. I'laiIll ill lrt, i',lilcd t')
,u,,unlcnt IIec,II I ,c II^),ucll,tcttl,ll c,)llllI"I c\ i,t,. I ( I
idcniiiv ,m,, I,tll,^u,tgeM Dclt,l', Intcmatioii,tl t c,ntractofCarri,t,.,c vvhchcithci- prohil, Delhi from collcctM.L the Tai lion OT' Le ILII[, Delta to do so. lu&c,
10 the Intel-rn,ttional t oiitract of Carri,l^c sloes not refer to the T,t\ it all. 11 12
13 Scec^ndl t i n ti 11, does not c i to to any language with] n the "Mexican General Law
of Population" which prohibits Delta from collecting the fee frolii exempt p,t;,elllgers. Plaintiff alleges only that the Mexican goy c:i,nmcnt imposes the lee can passen gers, rather
14 than the airlines, but that Delta "has undertaken to collect these non-immigrant fees from 15
16 its passengers, and remit them to the government of Mexico on behalf of its passengers." (COMPLAIN f" 15-o.) The fact that the airline provides to its passengers the service of
17 collecting the Tax in connection with the purchase of the fare (rather than requiring 18 p
20
21 22
^1e^ic,nl ,t,ltutc by collecting the fee from an otherwise exempt p^t,,en e.r. Plaiwiff i, c,,enti^llI^ , ti-_,uing that Rule 1(C)(4) broadl y imj)u;cs a cmitr,lctual IiIon on 1)cIt ,I to conll,ly vv 1th ever ) I potctitially-applicable i nternational. rnatiorlal,
,1fltc.
,IIIJ
or Ioc,ll
iW
_,m crnn lc nt
I, nA ,ul(l rc'1LlkIllOIl tllio ti llt+ut tllc world ,aivf li,t, crc,llekl,I
^litl,lCt ill
C;lll,c 01 ,letloll
I)tc ,lcll
^)l
l,lA or of
^lll
cry finic ih,l1 ,lll\
tlcIl
25
I
KtIlltill
27 28
i I~ 1, I}rt tllul I
__-41>I Ll v^ I-'.I I'1 `, Isl-'lll I^ ^I I't't^l^l !i Ali ^14t
Case 3:08-cv-01523-JSW
Document 16
Filed 07/29/2008
Page 9 of 18
lol,111%
it
t,d ,1, vv Ilh the t^Ult CI
1,1, 111? ^ILCCtIA,
;41,11
1h; Rtllc III
AC;^. II;llli^^.A ^'\ ^^l^tl(^Il tt^
DUI,,^'iI"c
^l)
1^IC^'llll ?ll^^ll IC
^r'.^Ic t I C
CIItI,t t
I'I, 11 1
tl,c^l
l^lll^tI
C1:11111^
1"I""l
I'll
;l\
I
ha l
ale "C\ICI II:il
to the
:1^'rCCIlICIIt
he \I)A" l^rcclllhtioll clause ..., I.Ca(1 t(^^_c[h^^r \\ H11 the ^ I c^lcr;11 ^^ iati^ln
tr0111 111111, t11CI1 i^VAIl ^L111^taIlU\^ ^tan(1,1r(i, v\ Ith I ",rc 'l to II OL[tc, 01 ^cI^\ ICC^. but il()1 I'l I)IIl (I 1'1'k I (11if ^.'
a term the tll.lt an ; l irlinc rc li cl t(^ ^I I^III vvho ti la inl, n1,1 airline it^cli lluLitcd. I hip Ji tinctir)n hctvvicen vv hat the ^tltc J CLItc- ^Wd \Vh^ll IhC ^IllllllC l1^e ^ llllilCltah^':^ c(^IlhIIC-^ Ctl(IIt - , 111 hrcach- l^l-ci^ilir^l^^1 8 9 10
H 1' ;1Ctl0I1> to the h;ll'lll'^ Ohl ^'tI1^' lrl;^ A ^^/ l( h(II (lUl. , 71/1 11<^ ^'Il/^!1 ^rt'lJl('!It Ut i!111,111('0)l('lll /),lei C Y ( \/t V!Lt/ i, Nit (1(1l cc'/71^'llt^.
513 U.S. at 232-33) (Emphasis added) (see also Smith v. Coma rr, Inc., 134 F 3d
254, 258 (4th Cir. 1998) (plaintiff's "contract claim can only be adjudicated by reference
12 to law and policies external to the parties' bargain and, therefore, is preempted under the
ADA").)
14
Plaintiff's argument that the Delta International Contract of Carriage was breached
because Delta erroneously collected a Mexican Non-Immigrant Tax from a passenger who in fact qualified for an exemption under the Mexican statute establishing the Tax is the epitome of a claim for breach of contract based on a law that is "external to the agiccmcnt." This is particularly so, given the fact that Rule 90(c)(2)(b) expressly eolttcmplates that errors in international t1c1ct tai collection might occur and establishes a s1)eci tic process by which Atlcctcd passen^^crti 1»av regticst wind rece
in (1uc^tiun.
e a refund oftllc
I;I\
22 23 2=1 25
PkiIfit I [Y also asscrla lhat -It Ilc c^1,ca on A.DA
c(^nlracl^
PTCCI1111tI(1 11 o
f Al if 111, 1Qr111_cac11
hc 1 vvCC II
Il1Colpol'1tc,
a
l^lb4
the I)n)\ (lo C,
III)t
1,I1111,
Ot
Ili^it 1,t v
hec oiiic 1)^irt
t)I
the,:ontract.
^md
cnloiccillcnl
Ill
of
pi O\
I^I(m,
C \11, 11111 t11c
Ci^Iltrll ltl(11 l>1)II'_'1111t^11>
of the
:iii hilc
()r ic,tdt,
tii,11
I^rcenlllti^^l^ Of tllc hicacli O( ,(^ntr^lct ..Ialm."
(N. N.
it
y-9J
Howcv
cr. 1111,
27 ov crl(x11,, the fact th^1t th( 1)(1/,i ha, / ll(/;'ional (^^Ilir(1( / 28
/( , it //I ,irllllJ(' 0!1
l'l lrt^'i (/!(/ ll0/l ill( (j11)
^t:ltil[ c
` 1(r
h/ P//;"i/Ills/
anti 1 11" ^1cyi^^n1
11-Clyd(,c, not
UI I 1 \" 1 '1 111'1 1 11CJ1 1 I`, -I I'1'("1,1 ( ^I \I! ) I I(
Case 3:08-cv-01523-JSW
Document 16
Filed 07/29/2008
Page 10 of 18
II)C'
^'i^t? alp A^!lli`I iii th,' I:tv I
F,-X
IIi.
f`t!ill
Y?fi{^?e -IT ;li)l'., (,I ^I
!I1?,`,A t^Io, 1 l , II
til
NI1'at1II
!IlvokC, l
111^1, ,IIiiII ,Ii !, I thy' ^It aat,011
111-,,ilt^'d
In 1i Tc\.
t
he
,tiii titl^; c k)ntcii, l c, 1 that ti I,
\v _:1
inIt r
\^ lniIIII-t!:ttI^)I]
^t ^(^11tIll^Illlal t^;l»CII^^^'I I' ll t01niallt)n tk) I114 lull,1101I^tth)II ^CcIllIt-\
v, ithoLit thC ir con,cllt. The cc
t held
that
plat l l t I t t
nor hrcach
iii contr2« ( \\a> not
8
I)rcclrnl)ted be, au^,c it rested "on a self-imposed widertaking ct)nL'Crnili^_' the handlir,
a,>cn cr,. confidential information. at 565 .) SpccI1-tcall y , -- American , vv ch,itc
set[] out its privacy policy, which [was] part of the contract of carriage with (Id. at 556.)
12 The Policy state[d] the limitations American observe[d] in disclosing or sharing customer information and represents that information security is one of its highest prioritic>,** and '`represent[ed] that American does not sell customer information or share a customer's email address with third parties unless required by law, and does not disclose customer information to companies affiliated with American, or unaffiliated third parties, except to fulfill products or services the customer requests, and may disclose this information to the united States or other countries' tax., security, or regulatory authorities, if required by law.
14
15
17
18 American argued that the breach -of-contract claim was preempted because it could not be adjudicated without resort to outside sources of law - specifically the court would 21 22
2 need to
co i,)Idcr \\11CI^1C1 ^1f»Cill[l1,111t^I1
ofthe confidential information
>tatc(l
^\,t>
-rC
law." (Id. at 565.) In rcjccting, this ur^uincnt. the court bound by its pi
Iamtaincz
t y,i^
that - \nlcrican
3
^^oli^ v _ CvCCF)t
retpwcd hylaw,",tn(i tlrtt''ilic laws that \inci
24
are extcrll al to the
^v im ict are c\.-pi c --Iv Ir^t)1l^t^r atc d Int o It
(M.
(tt
f he
N Mat i,
court acl,lc,i that the
,intil'l', kiid --not
nii.Itiifv ills co niract t() rIL'- ^I
external tI) 11; trrms.27
il Ai , !c clrr ltl'!n b1h:-.
unhk+`hereO
the airline had rmldr a -`self-Imposed <^1711 teal Ion "^ namely , t« pi otcc t the prlvacy
I)I I i V, 1'11'1 i L'I?Ifl 1`. `^I I'I'I ^I' 1 +^I V!I if I^ i^ ^ i)l^\IJ
Case 3:08-cv-01523-JSW
Document 16
Filed 07/29/2008
Page 11 of 18
11111^'Ilt thltt 0 1: cofIT-! ll^t^l^lll!Il'^' \V I1^'t^ltl^ Ally"^',^;lll
110.'11 to c ^^Il^lll^'!
^Ai^'I ILl 1.1^
I^^I^tl^^_I 11'.;11 ^^I^,i^_lili^ll ^',I^l I1^71 ^'^'.^lll_
.':1^ t^l^'t 111,1(
\ ]I^II^ III
h,1J
ill, ldc ,uc ll : I , , ^ )II'I,I^
tu;ll
,'^1Il,iII1 1'. I'
Ill I I l
th"
ill,t
i,1,I^
13\
C,,III I .L 1 II I" hV I^^It11 Rl?1 1l^ ^ ollI;I' t i
\lcAlllllcn 11 , I , n^,t - ;1n,I t' ,tIIIItII
plllilt It? :l[1V
^t-
Illlp^^;^ti ,cd
tlhll'^11t1t?Il
1,,Cl]"
C I"
F)clt..
IlcA cI
Ill It,
I IItc1^11, 111t)Il, ll
C01ICcl till; )I 1III ^^thcr ticl.cl t:lv [Ir )III '111\
lilt
CIt11 ;I cIIt^
pC^^v
I^I^^11 111 111 L , C01W:1Ct 1,
Kt1Ic
I)I)tc l( ^ )I ILL
v vlltcI I
v1i1C,,Iv FCL'0''111'; , (11111
11^i,^ilt iii tEct collect international tickct tapes in cnoi groin pii,,ciigcrs 'mho are
cACillpt
I1-()m
tho,c
tii
\cs.
It
also
pi o\
ldcs
a
co ut latlll,ll procc,s
h\
which affected
I C7
may obtain a refund of the erroneously collected tayc,. Thus, Delta did not hrc.lch In\ provision of its International Contract ofC"arri.l;,c by collecting the Tax from
12
Plaintiff, c\ crl a,sumin,the truth of his allc`,,ltion that he is exempt from the Tax. Delta would only hav c hrc,lclicd its contract with Plaintiff if had refused to issue Plaintiff a
14 refund of the erroneously collected Tax upon submission by Plaintiff of a valid request for 15
a refund which included proof of his alleged exempt status. This is a fundamental defect in his theory of the case, which cannot be overcome.
17
Plaintiff fares no better with his reliance on In re Air Transportation Excise Tax Liil-wion, 37 F. Supp. 2d 1133 (D. Minn. 1999.) There, as in this case, the airline (Federal Expresso hi c,lched no relevant contractual olfli,r,ltion. Shippers ch^lliciiLod
20 1 cticral Express's imposition ofa fctlcr^il cyci c tiu th,lt had expired. Althoti-,h a valid,
21 cxpre^, contract cyI>tcd hcm ccn the airline anti ill, hippers, the court held th,lt the conir,lct .lid "not oLliac l c(il y to reduce its rates to exclude the tax once it cvpnc^_l," or un,lnlhi<
22
1 1141-12.)
ak, 116 '-,
rt 1'I,lintilf^· (u^tIlrCllC 11^.^,lin,t -AD )u,^' vv ^1 JCHIC(l,l (ir^i-^^1
J, jcy.
?t1
l)c , il() t
hrc^nlpti^^n. In ill,lt c^l,c, c^^^1
p,l^'^^ il!'CI" \\ llu^
c. lt on an ()v ci ,old [li^tht to L^I^
twd the ,Ill hiic for
^IVAch oC;^onlr^lrt fr^al^l ,iiid tlli,rchrc-cnt,itioll. ,c^ Line to recover the cost of I<
111
1 V'^ KI I'j
1>1 ? I I I 1`.
I'I'I II t 111 1,11 ) 1 It 1-0 1)1 ^y}t.
Case 3:08-cv-01523-JSW
Document 16
Filed 07/29/2008
Page 12 of 18
" the
11>. 1 I?^
il'tII,IC Iii I
hel(
lh.I,
III''II,
I i I C ^,01II I i ICI,.l
th; lt the
AD \ lileelil}i1C^l
' I II
tI:1 ^- 111,111,!,
^`.^t, I^Ia^'^ I^^ lh^' ^'\t^ I Il;ll
hill
'11IJ
111I^^tll?11 !' 11', 111e .'^^Ill1;l^ [
^^t l^^'llTlhtll^^e":llelll Ill the el»1 t?I ^I lil !\ ^lte ih;ll^1^ l^^ ll 1
I1
Illi'
^:;l^e^
re11e^1
inn
hV
I^I,lllltl ^ 1
>U1^1^^^1^1
I11^ ^,r^^1I171eI1I
[llal 1h^'
Il<11 I^l^^\
e\CeTlwl] to \1) \ I'ICCm})twil k^'renl^^r^^^nlei
17
_._c It -i1111^,,^^'^1 u11^1^^1t^1hi11,^
^)I t
airhtlt'
;ll^li^le^ lip P1t1111HI'l
lh^ll^ell ^' t" Dula
collectio ll
he
I ^1\.
8
B.
PLAIN i I E FS CI1ALLL NCF I () "I II F, COLLECTION O
HIE MEXICAN
NO'-I NIMIGRANT TAX IS -110:1. k l F-I) TO" DELTA'S PRICES, ROUES AND SERVICE Plaintiff's argument that the connection between Delta's collection of the Tax and 12 13 Delta's prices. routes anchor serv=ice is "too tenuous, remote, or peripheral" for ADA preemption of his claims fails as a matter of lacy. (Pl. Br. at 10.) As set forth in Delta's
14 opening brief. Plaintiff's claims are preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act because 15 they clearly are -related tee" Delta's prices, given that the is collected as part of the
purclml ,2 price of the passenger ticket and is related to and intertwined with the sale, price,
17 and issuance of the passenger tickets. (Opening Br. at 4, 7-8.) In addition, Plaintiff's
claim,; also are "rc l,llc 1 to" Delta`s routes and services because the flax. is collected only 19 on routes bct\\ ccn Mexico and other countries and it is part of the services provides by
20 Dclt^1 to its cu t«mers to facilitate the flow of p^l^^ell crs through Nlc,^ic^tn airports by 21 22 23
chmjriting the ilccd fo^r to ;t^ln^l i11 line
c \i s an airports to pay the Tax prior
to cnici ln,^, the country. (h/. at -l. S.)
1'1;1111111 Ulllf'1l Villlhl^
narroc,
l: m trtlCtHm
f the 1D \ i`n re 1h^ I IBC I I I I tI I
24 Surrcnle ( mill 11,1, re^ltl hrO^l^ilY the "rel,ltcd tu)- langua,,e in the \0 \ ^md. Ill tc 25
hr^^^·n11^t1^ ^ ^^1I^'^^t 102) (,-'1 hr
I
the \D \.
o, ,
, 1
lrail, 11
{C!' /1( ,,
/ /?i
.. -114
t'.S. 374,
t1)] i; ^1 I)i o
7
Cvhre^- :I I,IO,Id pre- enlhtiv e purh+rne ).) I
28 11 Tra!!,!, .1
2 [ JJ.S.
- 128 S. C't. 989 {?t1w1^ I the Court defined the tci n1 :^ e1 ice" to
1 }i 11.1 ^, I? I Ill TT I 1`. '1 11111 ^1Lt I )I \}( ) J I
YO r)t,
,, 11
Case 3:08-cv-01523-JSW
Document 16
Filed 07/29/2008
Page 13 of 18
1,:
\I) A ;ll;l !,10', 1,h)Ii
Jctci
Il'i?lllii^
ili^ii the
rc^ICl!c^1_ :uli^^n= ^^tllcr tll n^^. tlic IIrT,"I!-,OlI
rccll,Iciit
1i^lc^ltlt^li i^c^^^!Il^clllc!11^ tail II^L^;1eC[! ^lli}^lilcllt^, lll^' ^ t?III^I ^lac^l cAI^':^c^^^\ t,^lal ^ (c^lcr^ll
^^l\\ illtl^[
lil^cclli}^t I^t^ltc
cll^il^I^ ^llrc^tl^ 1^.^ r^`?tll^ltc c.ll^ll
^^^t^l I Irnl^ll^l^i^ ^I^i^lc^{I.I I llc ^^^.^urt n^^ic^l f^urtllcr tlr,it t^^ inten^ret tllc ir^lcr;ll l^rcenil^ti^_^n
)f. )
\ 1-1 011 111 It 1,1
1CA
l it -Ii Il I `L l
CICIcI^Illllilll'_' l^l^^ ^. rUlc>, all^l rc^^lllalli^ll^.
r Ic^i^lati^
clll_)rt tO Ica^c such dccl,Wn,,, whet, fcticr^dk unrc,^ul^Itc^i, to tl>c
comp ctiti\ e mari.etl) lacc." (Id. at `?')(,:
^r1^^^ id, at 998 tl;in^l^tlrg , . coilctirririg)
10 (notin` the "breadth of[the] preemption language" in the Fedcial Aviation Administration
Autho i-ization Act of 1994. whose preemption provision (49 U,S.C. § 14501(c)(1)) is in
12 pari material with that of the ADA).) 13
Plaintiff also fails to rebut the fact that the U.S. District Court for the Central
14 District of California recently found that "claims ... concerning the collection of the 15
Mexican tourism t ix relate to Mexican's prices because the Mexican tourism tax is
16 collected togctlic i v\rith the purchase price of the passenger ticket and is rcLitcd to and 17 intertwined with the sale, price, and issuance of the passenger tickets." (Sanchez v. 18
Cotnpani, r l /,-k 1cana de Aviacion S.A., Casc Vo, CV 07-7196 (RCx) (C.D. Cal. March 23,
19 2008), at 5-7.) 3 20 21
Plaintifi's nl;_'umcnt is also it odd., vv ith the holding in Back v. Anicr"ican Airlincv, Inc,, 476 F,3d 29 (1st Cir. hcr^ the court held tli^it the ADA pl-ccmhtcd claims to ncludinLI c,
()II
22 recover varioti- k_c Multi tu\c, 23 2
1lllJill l,_'rlltI')II Icc^. ll^'I lcUlttlr,ll gliul^lntillc fcc', ^ccUl Its Icc,, 'llid cll,ll
Lcl l td F if
j I^vci^^n
cinmcni
c(dlcctcd
^Ilreftnltl;ll^^c llcl^c(^.
^^UrI h)tIll(i tlicrc_ - ^^l^ltll^^ll^.'ll il ic Icc, fire in Onc ^cil^C
26 27
l^Ilil,it; 1 ^ui^_1 ^ t,, tllc T7ccl^u^^ltion ^^(^ III Air I.inc^_ Lnc.'> Votk)ll I ^^ I)i^Ini;>
II I-) llh})urt ( ) I
1 [ )l: t.
1 t}.)
1Y1 Ul^`^11^>>
Case 3:08-cv-01523-JSW
Document 16
Filed 07/29/2008
Page 14 of 18
.11,11c 11W11 tllc
;:III, th" r'\
illcAtllc^l
I"It `, I
II I,c
ill r')-^'J
1`V'
or"I'ItWil
^)I
IaAA
c^lcr^tl c^ci^c t,lv oil c^ulceil
rr:enll,tetl
^,\ thy, At) \),
\D< I,rcenll,tc^1 Irt^^cil^_^er claint^ tlrtt ,tirlinc^ inll^r^^l^cl
tIIcml to federal c\c Ise tax
Alter
I^i\ had
cII cd).)
9
It is also clear 1111It I h'1t,t's collection of the Mexican Non- ImIl1i,,r,mt Tai rcI,iIcI Io
10 Delta's -'route; - .tnd "ser,,ices.+ Plaintiff alleges that the Mexican gw crnment impo^,cs
the lcc^ on p t;,cn,Lers, but that the airlines (including Delta) assist in the collection of the 12 13 fee b^ charging the fcc to 1^a ;eri Ycrs. (COMPLAIN-1- 4'1 5-6.) If the airline; did not provide thi; ;cry tee then pas^et^^ccr^ flv Ind, into Mcytco would be treated like tt,i^ clct' to Mexico
14 by land, who pay -the non-ini ni i t7 rtl n t fee at any bank upon arrival in Mexico ...." (Id.
15 " 27.) This would add anothc r t i c I a} to passengers who would have to pay the fee 16 separately, rather than the convenience of having the carriers charge the fete along, with the 17 ticket price and other fees, taxes and surcharges. Thus. as the court found in Sanchez (at 18 p. 5), the challenge to collection of the Tax "also relate[s] to I/lc\lc
22 2 24 25
a (1() 11( 't ^thl)lvhce ttI c 1'11tiIt II _I, 11( )1 PImm IIII'tIr,uc, III.It ^ ul^nrtl Jn,1 ^M111,u IlicI) ^Ikt not :11)1+ k) I'I^tinIIII ,IIId lllc utcItinL' lklt;t', ticl\et rclintkl hOlicIC,memhcr^ t,f ^llc ( I;t,^. ^ I'l. I>r. Ott 1-_ n. .) Ilw"'c\ cl- I'l^tintitf^clc^trl^ iclrtlleI] I II,, tll I,tct tII,II IL, I"ai^i tltc I'cc ^ul(t 1),I, II ()t Iccciv cal 'Im IcIun(i. A1()rco\ et. till, ^t;>crtit_^n i, I,^t^c^l ^,n stn unreas<^n^tl,l^ n;ur^>>^ intcr^l^retati^^n rl^tllc llr^l^lin^r ^^t Illcll tllo»e c,I^c". I Ile I)Ott,,nl lillc i, tllal I'Itlintif^l i^ cll^lllen^^in^.^ 1)^t^nlcnt ^d ,I t,t\ l included in the ticl.ct 1?ticc. It i-) tliliicult IO in1^ILI nc ^^,nlrtllin^_^ lc- tcl^tlc^I DJI l to rile -prlcc._ 1mId 1'(,r;Iir tran^l^urt^ttirlt.
27
1)I 1,1 \
REPLY BRIE I `^ `-! IT(W 1 -1 ".I!) I (C t t Ili^^,11^
Case 3:08-cv-01523-JSW
Document 16
Filed 07/29/2008
Page 15 of 18
n,1 ;n line -t 1\4c,, c-tn airr(11 1,
PaV
I ri, rm tai prier to enter`Ir, t It
^I_Il!Iicalll^v. ll^^llc ^^t
lllc
^';!^^'^
Icll,'^.I
till
1^v
1^lalIIIIII
c11 1
IIU,Illwl l1cl
`.C^ ^tv^li^l tllc
11^^a^l
hicclll11tl( )Il I'M( 1vc^I Al lvtlllll
tc^cilihllil
tlic IacttI,t
^^'vcla^ ^a
(11,1
1101 cv 'III m
''1 \
l
ci^Ilnl, ^^\ ;ill llnc I^,I;^cll^
yr lI 1
Ui,t. I I \I
I -I
l I O. I km Iii AIarch I `). III+ItA\ \ 1111 -11,1111-, Coll hdcntial illI,k1111LIth)II
COMI)ctll(_)I. Vc,a
\ 101,11cd l'c IC1111
IIItIMI't
ATt,lirncd when Mc,a ^,^as cott lilcrin^ ,iii investment in Aloha. Aloha`s claim
trot
9 nr,>tcri,llly connected to airline price-. I outes or services because Aloha was "not 10 ch,Illcn,zing the prices [offcicd by
17c7- se, but rather ... the mc,mt by which N I
w
12 covenant of good faith and f 1l r dealing with Aloha." (Id. 13
In A11 It 01-1d Pr(?Osiolil d Travel Services , Inc. v. Ainerican Airlines , 282 F. Buhl).
14 2d 1161 (C.D. Cal. 2003 ), a travel ,l,_micy alleged that American Airlines violated the 15
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and was liable for breach of contract and various state laws, because of its conduct in requiring the agency to pay S 100 or more for using the Airline Reporting Corporation to process passenger refunds for flights cancelled as a result of the September 11 th attacks . The court found that none of the "state law claims relate to American's prices. " (Id. at 1171.) Rather, the " only aspect of American ' s business undertakings that (\\,l ] id(1rc,,j cdj by [the travel agency 's] claims [vv ;], I :American '; allcLed Lllcnlc to rccoup i ts refund lo,,c, in part bN churl., itlg [ the travel
22
iIL,cncy]" the pcn,lltic,. t /d.)
il^nificantlt the court Gild n,,t take issue vv ith ihl^ litany of
I;c,holdin(, 11,11 -',In 1111-1 i11 c", II_1,ctI-cl Inclor tickct rci"uancc }^ licv dirc,:tk inlhact1 d- 101 ll^r%rrl Tvm cl, Ifr( I 195 Od (ir. ] ^l^l,y' 1 t (r,n c l ,I^cncv 0,1,1,, lirim( ^. lli< , 1641 _',d
ciainl f^,r ^ici,un,lti^^n ^I^^
p ut 1), ^r[cdly had
I
lhl It t
he t' 2CII v ;^) l d ^'f olcl t ticl.ct, 11, )t
1'v the \ 1 )
('01/ i/h ^!t,;l Ail b1,,, ,, hi(( I II , ;'1;, /, 11M9 t .5. Dist. LF \ (, l t,, 1 ,tt
\1
16-17 {"(
tra^cl a^^cncv lorunauthori/cd Talc ol^disc_wlllt
1)1.1 TA - Il I P[ 'Y I;R1F ' P", tit I'I'l_^P 1 B
yl( iifl)
Case 3:08-cv-01523-JSW
Document 16
Filed 07/29/2008
Page 16 of 18
lily
11;1^Ct^
ro t i^^ (^
no rc-'I[I`T
^lCt'^I^I11111;l11^^II ^,
c^tlut I,I^,_r:ln^ ^^;^ rc^ ^utic^ rcrci
I'I,tintII I , IvIIi IIICC Oll ( ,
t`)`)- I
^ 1)1,t^
11' \ I^
1 ^Jy ; I A.1 ). ;t 1. C) " to 1)':
0 Illcrc lrt'l Iwtllin^_, 1) ^1,) vv 1111 t^t\c,_ 1""', ()r "lhcr c11111
1 11c 1)IIIIlit] II', A1I LL'J th'It ^t
7
lli_ht ^t(lctl^l^lnt nc li^^cnt(\ ^I)INCd lnot ^v^Itcr ^)n : tn Ill 1"1111 11^t^^cn^^cr olulill,-, the (li^llt.
111c
ling of no ADA piccniption was entircly c^^n^i^t^llC-: ith \intll C ilcUit plcccdcllt [hat Congrc,s c1ld not intend to preempt I ,l,,cn`c^ run-of-tllc -lllill personal injury cla i ms."
C'haras v. Traw
es
1261 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc).)
Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff relies on language in Air Transportation /. ^ (i Tax Litigation, supra, that the ADA did not "preempt any of Plaintiffs' equitable and tart
13
claims," 37 F. Supp. 2d at 1140, this language has been appropriately rejected as
14 "mistaken." (See Buck v. American Airlines, supra, 476 F.3d 29, 36 n.8 (1st Cir. 2007)
(referring to the Air Transportation Excise Tax Litigation as a "mistaken" decision).) And, in any event, the court in Air Transportation Excise Tax Litigation dismissed the claims for
17 unjust enrichment and money had and received (and indeed all of the claims against
FedEx) because "[e]gllit^tblc rchcl`c^lnnot be granted where the rights of the parties are
19 governed by a valid contract," which cvi^tcd between FedEx and the shippers. (37F. 20 Supp. 2d at 1143.)6 21 ?2 23
24
In Charas. tllc
\I nth
Clrcult cons tl- acd the term
^CII ICC
no
t
to imIuklc
^^11)1
^lll'1111C ti pll^\ l^ll)Il 111 II1-111111 hCA Ci^ICti. hCI^(^11E11 ^i^til^t
h,ul(ilin^^ ^^f lu^^^^^t^^c. ^tn^1 ^illlil^n ^tnlcnitic,. (1^1. [lt 1 ?0 1 I'._;^l ^ 1 ^_ ^ ^ t ^^l ( I1^. ^Il(I^A) ( (/Iil/rL^ ^ ^IhhCl^<1^11_ A\ ^' u hcllcv C. I^ Ill^l^11^1^1 <'ill v v1111 Illc ^Uhl^'Il1C ( ^^UI1 S IC^^'lll ll^Cl^I^^II III Rw V11CIC "thc Guilt Ilccc-^,uIIv (ICli1Ic(1 `^,crv ire' 1^) event hcv(^)n(I hricc,. ^cllc^hllc^. uri^in,. ^u1^1 (Ic
26 27 28
F.2d 14^, )ill t ff. 109.,)_ 1, in^11^11^^,1tc IICC Itl,c 111c }^I,tintifl thcrc ^tllc^^c^J 11c w^l, iIIhI( 1)_Tk dcnickl ^t ;C^tl ()n ^nl ^,vclh',,l\cd I111,ll(. 1t) ImIdill" tll^lt 1110 cl,tiill fi,r (^unll^cn;^tt^,rv ^i^Inl^I^^^c^ vv^t^^ nOt I)ICCIII ptcd. (llc cmll-t. cnll^h^l;iic^i tll^tt I V\ rC^^rul^lt1011, 'CITI("I C )Il tcnllfl^ltc( 1 tll^tt stn illjurc^l p^t;^cn^^cl Ilrly ^,cc1, Ic licl, in curt 1'' I K,hou11rck1 I'rOtll ^111 w cd)(wlvc;l fli(
(I(/. Ott 152 {t lllll! 14 ( .1-.R. ^ _'_^I I.{)III
M
1)1 L1 \^, KI
I*T I )y -I
1
I 1t^ 1)1^`.I I
Case 3:08-cv-01523-JSW
Document 16
Filed 07/29/2008
Page 17 of 18
I^^;llllll^
IY,I^ I;llic^l L^.^
.ll'^.Ulti°Tlt
PI, UN I I[1, N\ klVF1) HIS RI(AfTTO
_k itf:t t N1 O -1 HE NO -
INU11(:RAN, I 1 k\ BN \OI Pt USI, IN(; I IIf: REFL-ND NN14IIFN THh 0NF'-) F SRCo )V I W\C1l kL 1'F.IZiOD
8
upUning brief= Dclta cJcmui>,trtlt^^l Tat Plainti tl -^ breach of contract claim failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted hcc.iu
12 Plaintiff does not deny that he failed to ptur,m: ^i refund from Delta vv ithin one year of his dates of tra cf. Tnstead, he contends that the one-year period foi - scA M, a refund o rthc 14 Tax did not apply to him because "Rule 90 of the International Contract of Carriage - only
15
applies to unused tickets." (Pl. Br. at 16) (emphasis in original). Plaintiff is wrong. Plaintiff relies on the general language of Rule 90 (A) of Delta's International
16
17 Contract of Carriage, which provides that Delta will issue refunds on unused or partially used tickets pursuant to the provisions of this rule. (Pl. Br. at 16.) H w\ U\ cr, the operative
19 provi-,Ioii is Rule 90(C)(2)(1)). Rule 90(C)
entitled "Voluntary Refunds," \\ filch arc
e' 20 defined to include "ani, rciiilld i11,-idc pit the iv(ju(-;t of the p^tsSCiigcr fnr any rc sor otlicr 21 than those specified ill the prcccciin;, section . _ , (l iiilflha,i, ^iddA.) By its term,- there
22
is no requirement that t1w refund be sought only fi)r Dui III-CC l tirl:et. To the contrary, the c,_'ilic I ^ hri>^°idc^
I I )tire (ii11t kil Ic ticf^ci,
I
)F Rule 90 (C)(2)(b). entitled -IZclilli(l (d I
efunei t,l^^°^_ Ice, rr ch:n ^^
r III^CrII^It ( )il^ll tr^lilTO r l, lll( )il
I C01Ic Ctc ^l
111) (
)11
h,
rl1 lillt'S ll , i' c ( (^!/t'1 1(71 Ill t '1'l ul i(!1(
/I1^?I(i^ll /1^^^111
-) t- ( h, o rc t,) Delta /ll c (»tll( 1
ed to ituiitlnii , in \\ Lich ilic
ICI l l V'^ !'I I'1 I P,?,II I I`_ , I
TO R1 «>I ^l, Il^Ili 1_0I>I 'll-,
Case 3:08-cv-01523-JSW
Document 16
Filed 07/29/2008
Page 18 of 18
t t'nt
ulilfgcd. -Ind 'l(,tl'IIIL' IIl I' .1
^1?
I^^ 'T1 TVII'l ^ I I] lci lmtl"''I'd (-,)III I [, : I
tlll^l'^^' I,
t i
tl^lvyt I, ll,CII tll^ I^I,tIIIII^I VIII`Illit^ ^1
;III^I tII11IIC-I Il l' ^1 I^IU[111.'
II t CON('I I S10N \\1) IZF, O t
,r X111 "I tll" rca,^)ll, ^,ct 161111 Jho"
SIFD I F, FIF[
)cll't , ^,I ^llin^ bl-i'l. I klt,l rc ^t^^tlillly
r^^Iuc,t^ 111,11 1111, ( offl-t dl,1111- l'I IMIitl , COMPL.A1\I a11]d acti(,n With plcjudic^-
8 9 10
Dai^:d. Jul,, 21), 200 Rc,I,cct1'u11y su1,ITliticI, SHEPPARD \ I I LLIN RICHTER & HAMPT ON 111
P ibp l Atkins-Patternson
12 13 14 15
P1 [ILIP F. ATKINS-PATTENSON attorneys for Defendant DLL-r.1 AIR LINES, INC.
-^
20 21 22 23 4
N'tI11ilI I-- ll,,crticm t1],it I)"h;1 vv^,uld hmn,'rcht,c(l hi, rci(uld rcgtlc,t i
27 28
,pc nikm\c ^md irrclc\tmi. I IIc uimII 1 )1.11c^I I'Ict i, IIT^lt 11,- tics ^21' ^ I,Iyc^1 lur Ut ^Iui itT^^ the onehcm.)d, fi k) m Ili, (k ltc, ^)f trl\ cl.
y^:^lr
ooh r -tund
-14
1>I C ! I^LI'L1 L'*'II 1 t:'i slip poi,J ^ II \It ^1 It ^` 1O 01^\11^^
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms