Daulatzai v. Maryland

Tonya M. Bana, Tonya Bana LLC, Baltimore, MD, David Manuel Bana, Law Office of David Bana, Esquire, Baltimore, MD, for Plaintiff.

Jonathan M. Stern, Schnader Harrison Segal and Lewis LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

James K. Bredar, Chief Judge

This case arises from Plaintiff's removal from a flight operated by Defendant Southwest Airlines Co. ("Southwest") in September 2017. Plaintiff has sought leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. (See ECF Nos. 55, 59.) In her proposed Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff again brings claims against Southwest, the State of Maryland ("Maryland," and collectively with Southwest, "Defendants"), and now seeks to also bring claims against the five individual officers (the "Officer Defendants") who were involved in her allegedly unlawful removal from the Southwest flight and subsequent detention. (See Third Am. Compl. ("TAC") at 1, ECF No. 55-2.) Defendants oppose amendment on numerous grounds, including Plaintiff's failure to meet the standard set by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and that many of the factors bearing on amendment under Rule 15 disfavor amendment. (See generally ECF No. 60.) The Motion is fully briefed, and no hearing is required. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2021). For the following reasons, a separate Order shall issue denying Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to file a Third Amended Complaint¹ (ECF Nos. 55, 59).

I. Factual Background²

On September 26, 2017, Plaintiff was ticketed to fly on Southwest Airlines

Flight 1525 from Baltimore to Los Angeles, a flight she took routinely to care for her father. (TAG ¶¶ 11–12.) Before boarding the flight, Plaintiff noticed several dogs in the waiting area and asked a Southwest agent how many dogs would be on her flight. (Id. ¶¶ 13, 15.) Plaintiff, who "has an allergy to dogs that, at its most extreme, causes itchy eyes and a runny nose," was informed that only one dog would be on the flight and that it would be seated near the front of the plane. (Id. ¶¶ 14–15.) To avoid aggravating her allergies, Plaintiff "took a seat near the rear of the aircraft," where she was informed by a flight attendant that there were, in fact, two dogs on the flight, but that both were seated near the front of the aircraft. (Id. ¶¶ 16–17.) Plaintiff told the flight attendant that this was not problematic because although "she has a dog allergy, but it is not a serious one." (Id. ¶ 17 (emphasis added); cf. Second Am. Compl. ("SAC") ¶ 15 ("[Plaintiff] responded that she has a dog allergy, but it is not a life-threatening one.") (emphasis added), ECF No. 40.)

Shortly thereafter, another flight attendant approached Plaintiff and informed her "that, in the event that she needed an EpiPen, there was one on board the plane." (TAC ¶ 18.) Plaintiff thanked the flight attendant but reiterated that her allergy was "not that severe and shared that she had never needed to use an EpiPen." (Id. ) Various other Southwest personnel followed up with Plaintiff about her allergy, "and each time she reiterated that her allergy was not a serious one." (Id. (emphasis added); cf. SAC ¶ 16 ("each time she reiterated that her allergy was not life-threatening ") (emphasis added).)

Plaintiff was then approached by "an older gentleman [she] subsequently learned was an MDTA police officer (and believes to be included among the Officer Defendants)" who asked if she had a food allergy. (TAC ¶ 19.) Plaintiff attempted to clarify that she had a dog allergy, but the officer insisted that various people told him that she had a food allergy and "that he had been called to discuss her food allergies." (Id. ) After Plaintiff requested to speak to whoever informed the officer that she had a food allergy, he returned with Captain Darren Medeiros (the "Captain"), who immediately told Plaintiff, "I do not feel comfortable with you on this plane." (Id. ¶¶ 20–21.)

Plaintiff tried to explain to the Captain that "she did not have any food allergy and her dog allergy [was] not a serious one," and that "she was her sick father's primary caretaker and needed to be in Los Angeles the following morning." (Id. ¶ 22 (emphasis added); cf. SAC ¶ 19 ("She also reiterated that ... her dog allergies are not life threatening. ") (emphasis added).) While the Captain "acknowledged that [Plaintiff] did not have a food allergy" he "continued to assert without any further explanation that he did not feel comfortable with her on the plane [due to his understanding that] she had a ‘life threatening’ dog allergy." (TAC ¶ 22.) The Captain further informed Plaintiff "that he had already summoned additional police officers to escort her from the plane." (Id. ¶ 23.)

Plaintiff implored the Captain "to reconsider and directly asked him to ‘call off’

the police." (Id. )³ During this conversation, the officer who previously spoke to Plaintiff advised the Captain, "I think [Plaintiff] knows her allergy better than we do. If she says it's not life-threatening and she flies often, why don't we just go?" (Id. ) Apparently agreeing with this suggestion, "[t]he Captain said he would try to ‘call off’ the other police officers and then walked to the rear of the aircraft, where he appeared to call or radio someone else." (Id. )

Plaintiff next alleges that, notwithstanding this conversation, "at the insistence of the Captain and other airline personnel, additional MDTA police officers, including, but not limited to, Officers McLhinney and Mossman, came aboard the aircraft and forcibly removed [her] from the plane without her consent and without probable cause[.]" (Id. at 25.) Specifically, she alleges that two MDTA police officers "began lifting [Plaintiff] out of her seat by her belt loops." (Id. ¶ 26.) Plaintiff, who was pregnant with her first child and concerned "about her health and that of her unborn child[,] immediately informed [them] that she was pregnant and ... would walk off the aircraft by herself." (Id. ¶ 27.) Despite this, the officers "physically grabbed and dragged/pushed [Plaintiff] from the plane." (Id. ¶ 30.) Plaintiff alleges that the officers who removed her from the flight commented that "she looked like ‘some sort of teacher’ and said that she was ‘going to learn a lesson today’ " and then "high fived" each other after successfully removing Plaintiff from the flight. (See id. ¶¶ 26, 38.) She further alleges that the officers who removed her from the flight did not follow best practices for restraining pregnant women, did not believe that she was pregnant, and later stated that "Mexican women always lie about being pregnant." (Id. ¶¶ 31–36.) A passenger recorded a video of Plaintiff's removal from the flight, which ultimately went viral. (Id. ¶¶ 37, 47.) Southwest later issued at least two public statements about the matter. (Id. ¶¶ 48–49.)

Following her removal from the flight, Plaintiff alleges that she was "placed in a holding area for several hours[,]" during which her repeated requests to "call her husband, a friend, or an attorney" or to use the bathroom were denied. (Id. ¶ 39.) She was ultimately "placed under arrest without a warrant and charged with resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, obstruction and hindering a police officer, and failure to obey a lawful order based on information the police officers knew to be false." (Id. ¶ 40.) In subsequent court proceedings, she received a probation before judgment on the charge of disorderly conduct with the remaining charges being dismissed nolle prosequi. (Id. ¶¶ 54–55.)

II. Procedural History

In December 2020, Plaintiff and her husband filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Maryland alleging claims of battery, negligence, and loss of consortium against Southwest and Maryland. (See generally ECF No. 2.) After changing counsel, Plaintiff alone filed a First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 3.) The First Amended Complaint omitted Plaintiff's husband's claim for loss of consortium and asserted a number of new claims, including federal claims for violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. (See generally id. ) After Defendants removed to federal court and moved to dismiss the

First Amended Complaint (ECF Nos. 1, 13, 16), Plaintiff sought leave to file a Second Amended Complaint that she claimed was necessary because her First Amended Complaint "only included a bare bones recitation of the factual allegations giving rise to [Plaintiff's] additional claims and [ ] a second amendment was required to set forth a better statement of those claims." (See ECF No. 28-1 at 6.) The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend (ECF No. 39), over Southwest and Maryland's arguments that such amendment would be futile because the Second Amended Complaint would be subject to dismissal for failure to state any claims. (See ECF No. 29.)

Southwest and Maryland then moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, motions that the Court granted after Plaintiff filed no opposition. (See ECF Nos. 41, 42; see also ECF No. 45 at 1.) Plaintiff appealed the Court's Order dismissing the Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 52.) During the pendency of the appeal, Plaintiff filed a Motion in this Court seeking relief from the judgment of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) or, alternatively, permission to file a Third Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 55.) Given its limited jurisdiction due to Plaintiff's appeal, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion insofar as it sought Rule 60(b) relief but issued an indicative Order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 with respect to the filing of a Third Amended Complaint. (See ECF No. 56.) In its indicative Order, the Court explained that it was "doubtful that [the Third Amended Complaint] alleges sufficiently distinct facts to alter the...