Swinney v. Frontier Airlines, Inc.

ROSETTA SWINNEY, an individual and legal guardian and next of friend to J.S., a minor, Plaintiff, v. FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC.;ABC CORPORATION 1-5; JANE DOE and JOHN DOE 1-10, Defendants.

1:19-cv-808

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

July 9, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

LORETTA C. BIGGS, District Judge.

Plaintiff, Rosetta Swinney, brings this action on behalf of herself and her minor daughter, J.S., against Frontier Airlines and certain of its employees ("Frontier" or "Defendants"). (ECF No. 1.) The complaint alleges damages arising from an incident that occurred when Plaintiff and J.S. ("the family") boarded the airlines for a return trip to Raleigh, North Carolina from Las Vegas, Nevada. (See id. ¶ 1.) Before the Court are Frontier's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (ECF No. 13), and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 17). For the reasons that follow, both motions will be granted in part and denied in part.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff and her fourteen-year-old daughter, J.S., are residents of Durham, North Carolina. (See ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 1, 3.) On April 19, 2019, the family arrived at Las Vegas's McCarran International Airport ("LAS") to take Frontier Airlines' Flight 2066 to return to their home in North Carolina. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 9-10.) Upon boarding the plane, J.S. attempted to stow her carry-on bag beneath the seat in front of her. (Id. ¶ 12.) Finding she had too little room to place her bag there, J.S. tried to move the bag into an overhead compartment. (Id.) She then felt and smelled a liquid on her hands and informed her mother that she believed she had a stranger's vomit on her hands. (See id. ¶ 13.) "Plaintiff and J.S. then noticed that the floor was covered in vomit where [J.S.'s] carry-on bag had been placed, [and that] vomit was on J.S.'s seatback tray and inside of [her] seat pocket." (Id.)

Plaintiff summoned a flight attendant ("Jane Doe-1") and apprised the attendant of the situation. (Id. ¶ 14.) Jane Doe-1 left, returning with "Clorox wipes and rubber gloves so that Plaintiff and [J.S.] could clean the vomit." (Id. ¶ 15.) When Plaintiff asked if J.S. could have some napkins for her hands, Jane Doe-1 refused, stating "it's better than nothing." (Id.) Plaintiff then directed J.S. to move into the aisle so Jane Doe-1 could clean the seat, but Jane Doe-1 responded that "it was not her job" to clean the mess. (Id.) After shrugging off another passenger's inquiry as to whose job that might be, Jane Doe-1 returned to the front of the plane. (Id.) After waiting in vain "for someone to return and address the vomit issue," Plaintiff walked up to speak with Jane Doe-1 and asked for her name and to speak with her supervisor. (Id. ¶ 16.) The flight attendant declined to reveal her name, having allegedly already determined that Plaintiff "was not flying on Flight 2066 'no matter what.'" (Id.)

Plaintiff then decided to relocate the family to two empty seats. (Id. ¶ 17.) At that point, an unidentified Frontier employee boarded and directed the family off the plane. (See id.) When Plaintiff refused to disembark on the grounds that she had done nothing wrong, Frontier called local law enforcement, who boarded and "reiterated to Plaintiff that Frontier wanted Plaintiff and [J.S.] off their plane." (See id. ¶¶ 17-18, 24.) When Plaintiff once again refused to disembark, the officers directed all the other passengers off the plane. (Id. ¶¶ 18-19.) Frontier then "falsely stated over the plane's intercom that 'because of one rude passenger,'" everyone had to deplane. (Id. ¶ 19.)

Plaintiff eventually deplaned, reached the gate, and was handcuffed and arrested for trespassing, despite the fact that by several passengers' accounts, Plaintiff was never "rude, irate[,] or confrontational" on the plane, even in the face of Jane Doe-1's "extremely rude" behavior. (Id. ¶¶ 20, 22-23.) Following Plaintiff's arrest, J.S. was temporarily placed in the custody of Nevada's Child Protective Services. (See id. ¶¶ 1, 20.) A few days later, Frontier released the following allegedly false message "on multiple social media platforms, news outlets, and across the world-wide web":

During boarding of flight 2066 from [LAS] to Raleigh-Durham International Airport (RDU) last week, two passengers told the flight attendants that vomit was present in their seat area. The flight attendants apologized and immediately invited the mother and her teenage daughter to move to either end of the plane so that the seat area could be cleaned. The mother and daughter were also told that once boarding was complete[,] they would be provided other seats if available. The daughter was also offered cleaning products and invited to use the lavatory to wash up. The mother was unsatisfied with the response and became disruptive. As a result, the flight attendants determined that the mother and daughter should be deplaned and accommodated on another flight. The mother refused, and following procedure, law enforcement was called. Law enforcement then requested that everyone deplane so that the mother and daughter could be removed allowing the aircraft to be re-boarded and depart.

We apologize to our passengers for the inconvenience caused by the departure delay. The safety of passengers and crew is our top priority at Frontier.

(Id. ¶¶ 24-26.)

Plaintiff now alleges that the family has "suffered severe mental anguish[ ] and emotional distress" from this incident. (See id. ¶ 26.) Specifically, Plaintiff and J.S. feel humiliated and believe their reputations have been sullied. (Id.) Further, because "Plaintiff and her daughter were subject to a well-being visit from North Carolina Child Protect[ive] Service[s] upon their return to North Carolina," Plaintiff "now feels as though her and her child [are] part of the 'system.'" (Id.)

Plaintiff filed her complaint on August 8, 2019, seeking over fifty-five million dollars in damages and asserting six tort claims against Defendants: (1) abuse of process; (2) defamation; (3) negligence; (4) gross negligence; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (6) negligent infliction of emotional distress. (See id. at 12-20.) Frontier moved to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim on December 6, 2019. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff filed her response to Defendants' motion on December 26 and later moved to amend her complaint on January 19, 2020. (ECF Nos. 15; 17.) While Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint asserts the same claims and pursues the same damages as Plaintiff's original complaint, it also seeks to add additional factual allegations. (See ECF No. 17-1.) The Court will now consider Frontier's Motion to Dismiss each of Plaintiff's claims and whether Plaintiff's complaint or proposed amended complaint will allow it to survive Frontier's motion or whether the Court allowing Plaintiff to amend her complaint would be futile.¹

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

A. Rule 12(b)(6)

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint," including whether it meets the pleading standard of Rule 8(a)(2). See Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 192 (4th Cir. 2009). Rule 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), thereby "giv[ing] the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests," Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A complaint may fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in two ways: first, by failing to state a valid legal cause of action, i.e., a cognizable claim, see Holloway v. Pagan River Dockside Seafood, Inc., 669 F.3d 448, 452 (4th Cir. 2012); or second, by failing to allege sufficient facts to support a legal cause of action, see Painter's Mill Grille, LLC v. Brown, 716 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 2013).

B. Rule 15(a)

The determination of whether to grant or deny a motion to amend a pleading lies within the sound discretion of the district court. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Deasy v. Hill, 833 F.2d 38, 40 (4th Cir. 1987). Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, courts should freely grant leave to amend a pleading "when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). "This liberal rule gives effect to the federal policy in favor of resolving cases ontheir merits instead of disposing of them on technicalities." Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426 (4th Cir. 2006). "[L]eave to amend a pleading should be denied only when the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or the amendment would be futile." Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503, 509 (4th Cir. 1986) (citing Foman, 371 U.S. at 182).

A plaintiff's request to amend a complaint is futile if the proposed amended complaint could not satisfy the appropriate requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to include Rule 12(b)(6). See United States ex rel. Wilson v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 525 F.3d 370, 376 (4th Cir. 2008).

III. DISCUSSION

As stated above, Plaintiff brings six tort claims against Defendants. Before evaluating the merits of each claim, as a threshold matter, the Court must determine the substantive law that governs each claim. Frontier argues that North Carolina law should govern Plaintiff's defamation claim and that Nevada law should govern the remaining claims. (ECF No. 14 at 4.) Plaintiff states only that she "does not concede" that Nevada law should govern her non-defamation...