Reinbold v. Alaska Airlines

1

LORA H. REINBOLD, Plaintiff, v. ALASKA AIRLINES, KYLE LEVINE, et al., Defendants.

No. 3:23-cv-00087-JMK

United States District Court, D. Alaska

February 12, 2024

ORDER REGARDING PENDING MOTIONS

JOSHUA M. KINDRED UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court are two Motions to Dismiss. At Docket 50 Defendants Kyle Levine, Jeremy Horn, Diana Birkett-Rakow, and Miroslava Frias (collectively “Specially Appearing Defendants”) move the Court to quash Plaintiff Lora Reinbold's service of process and dismiss the claims against them for a lack of personal jurisdiction. At Docket 51, Defendants Alaska Airlines, Inc., Marilyn Romano, Troy Michael Wuyts Smith, Amber Allen, Alison Reineccius, Johnny R. Mann, Kristen Dilley, Brenda Baynard, and Dorothy Daniels (collectively “Alaska Airlines Defendants”) move the Court to dismiss Ms. Reinbold's Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. Both motions are fully briefed.^[1] The Court took them under advisement without oral argument.

For the following reasons, both Specially Appearing Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Alaska Airlines Defendants' Motion to Dismiss are GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

This dispute concerns former Alaska State Senator Lora Reinbold's approximately year-long ban from flying with Alaska Airlines.

After the COVID-19 pandemic began in early 2020, governments and private companies took action to mitigate the spread of the virus. As relevant here, in April 2020, Alaska Airlines implemented a policy that required travelers on the airline to wear masks.^[2]On January 21, 2021, former President Trump issued an Executive Order requiring that several federal agencies, including the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), take action “to require masks be worn in compliance with CDC guidelines in or on . . . airports, commercial aircraft,” and other means of domestic transportation.^[3] The Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”), a component of DHS, then issued a Security Directive on January 31, 2021, that sought to implement the Executive Order and support enforcement of the Center for Disease Control's (“ CDC”) mask mandate.^[4] TSA's Security Directive required subject to limited exceptions, that “an aircraft operator must not board any person who is not wearing a mask.”^[5] Finally, on February 3, 2021, the CDC issued the Federal Transportation Mask Mandate (“FTMM”), which generally required persons to “wear masks over the mouth and nose when traveling on any conveyance (e.g., airplanes, trains, subways, buses, taxis, ride-shares, ferries, ships, trolleys, and cable cars) into or within the United States” and “at any transportation hub.”^[6] Thereafter, the Department of Transportation issued a notice regarding its policy for enforcing the FTMM, which specifically instructed the airlines how to implement the FTMM consistent with DOT requirements as to disability accommodations.^[7]

Ms. Reinbold alleges that, against this regulatory backdrop, she took a number of flights on Alaska Airlines between November 2020 and April 2021.^[8] She asserts that, on several of these flights, Alaska Airlines employees scrutinized whether she was appropriately masked in ways that made her feel singled out.^[9] The airline's scrutiny of her masking came to a crescendo on April 22, 2021, when Ms. Reinbold flew on Alaska Airlines from Juneau to Anchorage.^[10] Upon checking in with the airline, she inquired about accommodations for individuals whose doctors had provided them a written mask exemption and indicated that she had such an exemption.^[11] According to the Second Amended Complaint, an Alaska Airline employee informed her that the airline's policy was for an Alaska Airlines doctor to review exemptions before they would be granted.^[12]Ms. Reinbold objected to review of her exemption because she believed that disclosing her medical information would violate federal health law.^[13] As a result, she alleges that Alaska Airlines employees insisted that she wear a face mask, required her to replace the face shield she had been wearing, and mistreated her prior to boarding.^[14]

The next day, April 23, 2021, Ms. Reinbold received an email from Alaska Airlines notifying her that she had been banned from flying with the airline.^[15] Furthermore, Ms. Reinbold's return flight to Juneau had been canceled, forcing her to drive to Juneau for the next legislative session.^[16] After she contacted a member of the airline's board, Ms. Reinbold was put in contact with the airline's Director of Security, who informed her that she had been banned for failure to comply with the mask mandate and combative interactions with Alaska Airlines staff.^[17] Ms. Reinbold insists that she wore a mask throughout the April 22, 2021, flight and was not warned about non-compliance during the flight.^[18] Nonetheless, Ms. Reinbold's ban from traveling with Alaska Airlines was only rescinded on April 18, 2022, after the mask mandate ended.^[19] Ultimately, Ms. Reinbold initiated this suit, alleging claims against Alaska Airlines and fifteen individuals.^[20] She asserts that the Alaska Airlines ban and the incidents proceeding it resulted in difficulty traveling from her home in Eagle River to Juneau to attend the state's legislative session, negative media attention, and other injuries.^[21]

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

A party may move to dismiss an action where a federal court lacks personal jurisdiction.^[22] When a defendant moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff, as the party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal court, has the burden of establishing that jurisdiction is proper.^[23] “Where, as here, the defendant's motion is based on written materials rather than an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts to withstand the motion to dismiss.”^[24] And the Court “resolves all disputed facts in favor of the plaintiff.”^[25]

Nonetheless, this standard “is not toothless.”^[26] “The party asserting jurisdiction ‘cannot simply rest on the bare allegations of its complaint.'”^[27] Thus, the co u r t may consider declarations and other evidence to determine if personal jurisdiction exists.^[28]At the motion to dismiss stage, “uncontroverted allegations must be taken as true, and “[c]onflicts between parties over statements contained in affidavits must be resolved in the plaintiff's favor.”^[29] On the other hand, courts “may not assume the truth of allegations in a pleading which are contradicted by affidavit.”^[30]

B. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

A party may move for dismissal when a plaintiff's complaint “fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”^[31] To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain enough facts that, if taken as true, would state a legal claim to relief that is “plausible on its face.”^[32] Conclusory statements, unwarranted inferences, and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action” will not defeat dismissal; a plaintiff must “plead[] factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”^[33] In reviewing the motion to dismiss, the court construes all facts alleged in the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.^[34] Dismissal for failure to state a claim is proper “if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of [their] claim which would entitle [them] to relief.”^[35]

The court liberally construes the pleadings of pro se or self-represented litigants.^[36] Nonetheless, a self-represented litigant's complaint must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.^[37]

III. DISCUSSION

The Court addresses each motion to dismiss in turn.

A. Specially Appearing Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

Specially Appearing Defendants move for a second time to quash Ms. Reinbold's purported service of a summons and to dismiss Ms. Reinbold's claims against them with prejudice. They argue that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them as they are citizens and residents of Washington who lack any significant contacts with Alaska.^[38] In response, Ms. Reinbold insists that Specially Appearing Defendants have engaged in actions that connect them to Alaska.^[39]

Two independent limitations restrict the territorial reach of courts: the long-arm statute of the state in which the court sits and the constitutional principles of due process.^[40] Alaska's long-arm statute, Alaska Stat. § 09.05.015, is co-extensive with federal due process requirements, so this Court's jurisdictional analyses under state law and federal constitutional law are the same.^[41]

A court may exercise its personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant consistent with due process only if the defendant has “minimum contacts” with the forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction “does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”^[42] “Unless a defendant's contacts with a forum are so substantial, continuous, and systematic that the defendant can be deemed to be ‘present' in that forum for all purposes,” i.e., there is general jurisdiction over the defendant, “a forum may exercise only ‘specific' jurisdiction-that is, jurisdiction based on the relationship between the defendant's forum contacts and the plaintiff's claim.”^[43]

1. No basis for general, personal jurisdiction exists over Specially Appearing Defendants

Specially Appearing Defendants assert that there is no basis for general jurisdiction, as they do not reside in Alaska.^[44] Paradigmatically, a court may exercise general, personal...