The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LOUIS HENRY CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 22-0944
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. SECTION “B”(4)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court are plaintiff’s Complaint (Rec. Doc. 1),
defendant’s motion to dismiss (Rec. Doc. 7), plaintiff’s
opposition to defendant’s motion (Rec. Doc. 12), and defendant’s
reply in support (Rec. Doc. 18). For the following reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss (Rec. Doc.
7) is GRANTED, dismissing plaintiff’s claim pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
§ 41705, the Air Carrier Access Act (“ACAA”).
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This lawsuit arose from an incident at the Louis Armstrong
International Airport on April 7, 2021. Rec. Doc. 1 (Complaint).
During the Spring of 2021, Louis Henry (“Plaintiff”) purchased a
roundtrip plane ticket from Houston, Texas to New Orleans,
Louisiana on Southwest Airlines (“Defendant” or “Southwest”). Id.
Plaintiff requested wheelchair assistance at the time of purchase
due to pre-existing physical injuries that combined to render him
disabled. Id. However, when he arrived at the Louis Armstrong
International Airport for his return flight to Houston, Southwest
did not provide him with a wheelchair. Id. Plaintiff made multiple
requests to Southwest from when he arrived at the airport to when
his plane boarded, but Southwest did not provide him with a
wheelchair. Id.
Attempting to board the plane without the aid of a wheelchair,
plaintiff fell forward, hitting his head, should, and neck. Rec.
Doc. 1. Paramedics responded to the plaintiff’s fall, and a
customer service representative informed him that an incident
report and report number would be provided to him. Id. Plaintiff
asserts he has yet to receive the incident report or report number
from Southwest. Id. As a result of his fall, plaintiff claims he
has sustained injuries to his knees, neck, back, and wrist. Id.
On April 7, 2022, plaintiff filed suit in this Court, seeking
to recover damages he sustained in the above-described incident.
Rec. Doc. 1. He has alleged five causes of action, including a
claim under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”) and a claim under the Air Carrier Access Act (“ACAA”).
Id. On July 26, 2022, defendant Southwest filed the instant motion
to dismiss, seeking to dismiss plaintiff’s claim pursuant to 49
U.S.C. § 41705, the Air Carrier Access Act (“ACAA”). Rec. Doc. 7.
Plaintiff filed a timely opposition on August 9, 2022. Rec. Doc.
12. Thereafter, defendant filed a reply in support of its motion
on August 15, 2022. Rec. Doc. 18.
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. 12(b)(6) Standard
To survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), a plaintiff’s complaint “must contain enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Varela v. Gonzalez, 773 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2014)
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)
(internal quotes omitted)). A claim is facially plausible when the
plaintiff pleads facts that allow the court to “draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. A court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true
and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the
plaintiff. Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232 (5th
Cir. 2009); Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 196 (5th Cir. 1996).
However, the court is not bound to accept as true legal conclusions
couched as factual allegations. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009). “[C]onclusory allegations or legal conclusions
masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to prevent a
motion to dismiss.” Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376,
378 (5th Cir. 2002). A fortiori, a complaint may be dismissed when
it appears “beyond a doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of
facts” that would entitle him to prevail. Twombly, 550 U.S. at
560–61, 127 S.Ct. 1955; First Am. Bankcard, Inc. v. Smart Bus.
Tech., Inc., 178 F. Supp. 3d 390, 399 (E.D. La. 2016). However,
the Fifth Circuit has stated that motions to dismiss under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) are “viewed with disfavor and
[are]...rarely granted.” Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d
228, 232 (5th Cir.2009).
B. Plaintiff’s Claim Under the Air Carrier Access Act Must be
Dismissed
Defendant Southwest argues that plaintiff's claim pursuant to
49 U.S.C. § 41705, the Air Carrier Access Act (“ACAA”) should be
dismissed because that statute provides no private right of action.
Rec. Docs. 7, 18. Plaintiff filed an opposition, but the only
substantive criticism found therein was a one-sentence request
that “this Honorable Court … allow [plaintiff] leave of court to
examine and to address whether he has any viable claims under the
ACAA.” Rec. Doc. 12 at p. 3.
In a recent decision, the U.S. Fifth Circuit has unequivocally
held that “no private right of action exists to enforce the ACAA
in district court.” Stokes v. Sw. Airlines, 887 F.3d 199, 205 (5th
Cir. 2018). While the ACAA “prohibits airlines from discriminating
on the basis of disability, it does not expressly provide a right
to sue the air carrier.” Id. (citing Lopez v. Jet Blue Airways,
662 F.3d 593, 597 (2d Cir. 2011)). Furthermore, “every federal
court to reach the issue has held that the ACAA's text and
structure preclude a private right of action.” Id. at 202.
The ACAA “combines with other federal aviation statutes to
form a comprehensive administrative scheme designed to vindicate
fully the rights of disabled persons.” Id. at 202-03. This
regulatory scheme's enforcement “lies primarily with the
Department of Transportation.” Id. The ACAA only leaves private
litigants “carefully circumscribed roles.” Stokes, 887 F.3d at
203. The ACAA's remedial process is specifically limited to an
aggrieved passenger notifying the Department of Transportation
(DOT) of an alleged violation (with a limited right of judicial
review if the DOT declines to investigate); the DOT investigating
the allegation; the DOT issuing an order of compliance; and the
DOT itself enforcing that order by filing a civil action in
district court. Id.
Plaintiff has alleged a cause of action based on Southwest's
alleged violation of the ACAA. However, because plaintiff is a
private litigant, his complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted under the ACAA. See Stokes, 887 F.3d at 203;
Alvarado v. Allegiant Travel Co., No. 7:20-CV-00308, 2020 WL
6869996 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2020) (finding plaintiff’s complaint
failed to state a claim because her sole claim was based on alleged
violations of the ACAA.). While plaintiff has requested leave of
court to examine whether he has any viable claim under the ACAA,
we find that granting leave would be futile. See Theriot v. Bldg.
Trades United Pension Tr. Fund, No. CV 18-10250, 2022 WL 2967439
(E.D. La. July 27, 2022) (citing United States ex rel. Lin v.
Mayfield, 773 F. App'x. 789, 790 (5th Cir. 2019) (stating a
decision to grant leave is within the discretion of the trial
court.). Plaintiff is a private litigant. No amount of leave will
change that fact; thus, any claim under the ACAA will remain
precluded. Accordingly, defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) partial motion
to dismiss is GRANTED, dismissing plaintiff’s claim under the ACAA.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 16th day of August, 2022
___________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE