# BROWN v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.

> District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · January 23, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10406615

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** January 23, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10406615

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding outside of the removal context that settlement offer made after complaint was filed had “no relevance to the amount in controversy at the time the complaint was filed”
- noting that Pennsylvania law does not cap punitive damages

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

AMANDA BROWN & TIFFANY NIXON : CIVIL ACTION
:
v. :
:
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. :
:
: NO. 23-2001

MEMORANDUM
Padova, J. January 23, 2024
Plaintiffs Amanda Brown and Tiffany Nixon initiated this action in the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia County, asserting Pennsylvania common law contract and tort claims arising
out of their removal from a flight operated by Defendant American Airlines, Inc. Defendant
removed the case to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs now move to remand
the case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), on the ground that this Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction because the amount in controversy requirement has not been met. For the reasons that
follow, we deny the Motion to Remand.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing a Writ of Summons on March 30, 2023, followed
by a Complaint on May 16, 2023, both in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. On
May 25, 2023, Defendant removed the action to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
Defendant’s Notice of Removal states that Plaintiffs are citizens of Pennsylvania, and that
Defendant is a citizen of Delaware, where it is incorporated, as well as Texas, where its principal
place of business is located. (Notice of Removal ¶¶ 12-13.) The Notice of Removal also states
that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (Id. ¶¶ 16-19.) On July 1, 2023, Plaintiffs filed
the instant Motion to Remand. Plaintiffs deny that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000
and assert that this Court therefore lacks jurisdiction over this action.1
The Complaint alleges the following facts. On March 30, 2021, Plaintiffs boarded a flight
from New Orleans to Philadelphia operated by Defendant. (Compl. ¶ 7.) As others were still
boarding, a flight attendant told Plaintiff Brown that she needed to place her purse on the floor.

(Id. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff Brown attempted to comply but was delayed by the strap of her purse becoming
tangled with her seatbelt. (Id. ¶ 13.) The flight attendant, mistakenly believing that Plaintiff Nixon
had said something, asked her to repeat what she had said. (Id. ¶ 14.) Plaintiff Nixon replied that
she had not spoken, and the flight attendant left to speak with another flight attendant, who returned
and told Plaintiff Nixon to “be nice.” (Id. ¶¶ 15-16.)
Shortly thereafter, a large man approached Plaintiffs and insisted on escorting them from
the plane. (Id. ¶ 17.) Plaintiffs, who had been cooperative, polite, and nondisruptive, were
bewildered, but complied. (Id. ¶¶ 18, 21.) The entire incident was witnessed and video recorded
by Plaintiffs’ friend, seated elsewhere on the plane. (Id. ¶ 22.) A large group of Defendant’s

employees, including the two flight attendants and eight pilots, stood in the jetway and watched as
Plaintiffs were removed from the plane. (Id. ¶ 23.) The crew then made several announcements
to the remaining passengers stating that everything was fine and there had been no incident. (Id.
¶ 25.)
Upon disembarking, Plaintiffs repeatedly requested the names of the flight attendants and
pilot, as well as an explanation for their removal from the flight, but received no answers. (Id.

1 We note that, in addition to the memoranda filed in connection with this Motion, the
parties also filed several letters. In these filings, the parties advance arguments about personal
jurisdiction and alleged filing errors which are not pertinent to the Court’s disposition here and are
therefore not addressed. Plaintiffs also assert that there is no basis for federal question jurisdiction
in the instant action, which Defendant does not contest.
¶¶ 19-20, 26-27.) Plaintiffs were rebooked, but on a less direct flight leaving the following
morning, and they received no assistance with securing overnight accommodations. (Id. ¶¶ 28-
29.) As Plaintiffs had no transportation, they were forced to stay at a nearby motel which was
distressingly filthy and dilapidated. (Id. ¶¶ 30-32.) Plaintiff Brown sought therapy due to
symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder following the hotel stay. (Id. ¶ 33.) To date, the only

explanation for the incident provided by Defendant is that Plaintiffs refused to wear facemasks on
the plane, which the video shows was not the case. (Id. ¶¶ 34-35.) Plaintiffs are African American
and all employees they interacted with were Caucasian, suggesting racial animus as a motive for
their otherwise unwarranted treatment. (Id. ¶¶ 36, 72.)
The Complaint asserts seven claims under Pennsylvania common law: breach of contract,
breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, false imprisonment, false light
invasion of privacy, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of
emotional distress. Plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $50,000 each, as well as attorney’s fees
and costs. Plaintiffs do not specifically demand punitive damages in the Complaint but have

refused to stipulate that they would not seek such damages. (See Pl. Mot. to Remand Ex. B.)
II. LEGAL STANDARD
“[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States
have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant . . . to the district court of the United
States for the district . . . embracing the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, district courts have diversity jurisdiction “over civil actions where
the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 and is between ‘citizens of different
states.’” McCann v. Newman Irrevocable Tr., 458 F.3d 281, 286 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a)(1)).
“[T]he amount in controversy is not measured by the low end of an open-ended claim, but
rather by a reasonable reading of the value of the rights being litigated.” Angus v. Shiley Inc., 989
F.2d 142, 146 (3d Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). While this calculation does not include “interest
and costs,” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), it includes compensatory damages sought by the plaintiff, as well
as punitive damages and attorney’s fees if available under the plaintiff’s cause of action. See

Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188, 198-99 (3d Cir. 2007). Generally, multiple plaintiffs
cannot aggregate their separate claims to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement. Huber v.
Taylor, 532 F.3d 237, 244 (3d Cir. 2008). However, so long as there is complete diversity and at
least one plaintiff’s claims exceed $75,000, the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
other plaintiffs whose claims arise out of the same case or controversy. Exxon Mobil Corp. v.
Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 549 (2005).
When a case is removed on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy is
generally deemed to be “the sum demanded in good faith in the initial pleading.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1446(c)(2). However, where state practice does not permit a demand for a specific sum, the

notice of removal may assert the amount in controversy. Id. § 1446(c)(2)(A)(ii). Removal in such
cases is proper if, based on evidence submitted by the parties, the court finds by the preponderance
of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Id. § 1446(c)(2)(B); see also Dart
Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 88 (2014) (“[W]hen a defendant’s
assertion of the amount in controversy is challenged . . . both sides submit proof and the court
decides, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the amount-in-controversy requirement has
been satisfied.”). The case must be remanded back to state court “[i]f at any time before final
judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
III. DISCUSSION
Defendant first asserted that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 in the Notice of
Removal. (See Notice of Removal ¶¶ 16-19.) This assertion was based on Plaintiffs’ May 16,
2023 settlement demand letter, wherein they state that “[g]iven the trauma endured by the
plaintiffs, a payment of $150,000.00 . . . for each plaintiff would be required to satisfactorily

compensate them for the serious, lasting, and completely unjustifiable damages inflicted by
American Airlines.” (Notice of Removal Ex. E at 2.) Pennsylvania law does not permit demands
for specific sums in cases involving unliquidated damages. See Pa. R. Civ. P. 1021(b) (“Any
pleading demanding relief for unliquidated damages shall not claim any specific sum.”). Thus,
the Complaint merely demands unspecified damages in excess of $50,000 per Plaintiff. Plaintiffs,
however, maintain that the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. They assert that their
May 16, 2023 settlement demand was disingenuously prompted by Defendant, and point to
Defendant’s June 21, 2023 settlement offer of $2,500 per Plaintiff as well as their reduced July 1,
2023 settlement demand of $75,000 per Plaintiff in support of their contention that neither

Plaintiff’s claims exceed $75,000. (See Pl. Mem. at 7, Exs. A, B.)
“In removal cases, determining the amount in controversy begins with a reading of the
complaint filed in the state court.” Frederico, 507 F.3d at 197 (quoting Samuel-Bassett v. KIA
Motors Am., Inc., 357 F.3d 392, 398 (3d Cir. 2004)). In the Complaint, Plaintiffs demand damages
in excess of $50,000 each and allege “[s]ignificant monetary and emotional damages” including
“significant psychological trauma” and “ongoing physical symptoms,” which, for Plaintiff Brown,
necessitated “extensive psychotherapy.” (Compl. ¶¶ 33, 41, 71, 79.) Moreover, Plaintiffs allege
that Defendant’s employees were motivated by racial animus, which could support an award of
punitive damages under Pennsylvania law.2 (See Compl. ¶¶ 36, 72); see also Hutchison ex rel.
Hutchison v. Luddy, 870 A.2d 766, 770 (Pa. 2005) (“Punitive damages may be awarded for
conduct that is outrageous, because of the defendant’s evil motive or his reckless indifference to
the rights of others.” (quotations and citations omitted)); Minissale v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.,
988 F. Supp. 2d 472, 477 (E.D. Pa. 2013) (noting that Pennsylvania law does not cap punitive

damages). These allegations of serious injury, along with the availability of punitive damages,
support a finding that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Kovalev v. Lab’y Corp. of
Am. Holdings, Civ. A. No. 22-0552, 2022 WL 4586123, at *1, *3 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 29, 2022)
(finding claims of assault and discrimination leading to “damages and injuries, pain and suffering,
loss of enjoyment of life, psychological trauma, emotional distress and mental anguish” and
implicating punitive damages satisfied amount in controversy) (citing Karlowicz v. American
States Ins. Co., Civ. A. No. 20-488, 2020 WL 6165303, at *8 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 18, 2020)).
We also consider the allegations in the Notice of Removal as to the amount in controversy.
See Frederico, 507 F.3d at 197. As we mentioned above, the Notice of Removal alleges that the

amount in controversy has been met based on Plaintiffs’ May 16, 2023 settlement demand letter.
(See Notice of Removal ¶¶ 16-19, Ex. E.) We are mindful of the limitations of settlement demands
as a measure of the amount in controversy. See Evans v. Zhang, Civ. A. No. 17-3801, 2017 WL
4547912, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 12, 2017) (“Making a demand that is higher than the actual amount

2 Plaintiffs also demand attorney’s fees, but it is not clear that attorney’s fees would be
available under any of their causes of action. See Doctor’s Choice Physical Med. & Rehab. Ctr.,
P.C. v. Travelers Pers. Ins. Co., 128 A.3d 1183, 1189 (Pa. 2015) (“Pennsylvania law embodies the
American rule, per which there can be no recovery of attorneys’ fees from an adverse party in
litigation, absent express statutory authorization, clear agreement by the parties, or some other
established exception.” (citing Herd Chiropractic Clinic, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
64 A.3d 1058, 1066 (Pa. 2013))). Therefore, we do not consider such fees in evaluating the amount
in controversy.
in controversy is a common negotiating tactic to instigate settlement talks.”). Nonetheless, while
not decisive, Plaintiffs’ assertion that they would require $150,000.00 each for settlement is
relevant evidence of their view of the value of the case prior to removal.3 See Ciancaglione v.
Sutherlin, Civ. A. No. 04-2249, 2004 WL 2040342, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 13, 2004) (noting that
courts may properly consider settlement demands in assessing amount in controversy) (collecting

cases); Stadulis v. JetBlue Airways Corp., Civ. A. No. 23-3695, 2023 WL 8437280, at *2 n.3
(D.N.J. Dec. 5, 2023) (same) (citations omitted).
In contrast, settlement offers and demands made after removal cannot alter the amount in
controversy, nor do we see them as probative of the value of Plaintiffs’ claims in this case. See
Montilus v. Munoz, Civ. A. No. 09-4143, 2009 WL 3246609, at *3 (D.N.J. Oct. 6, 2009) (“Under
the time-of-filing rule, ‘federal diversity jurisdiction is generally determined based on the
circumstances prevailing at the time the suit was filed’ and once vested, cannot be ousted by
subsequent events. In this case, the Court looks to the circumstances as of the time the Notice of
Removal was filed. . . .” (quoting Kaufman v. Allstate New Jersey Ins. Co., 561 F.3d 144, 152 (3d

Cir. 2009))); see also 14B Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3703 (5th
ed.) (“[T]he determination of whether the amount [in controversy] requirement is satisfied is based
as of the time the removal notice is filed in federal court.”); cf. McCollum v. State Farm Ins. Co.,
376 F. App’x 217, 220 (3d Cir. 2010) (concluding outside of the removal context that settlement
offer made after complaint was filed had “no relevance to the amount in controversy at the time
the complaint was filed”).

3 Plaintiffs proffer no evidence that their May 16, 2023 settlement demand was improperly
induced, alleging only that Defendant expressed an expectation that the demand would be in the
six figures. Defendant denies making any such a statement, and we presume in any case that the
basis for Plaintiffs’ demand is the explanation given in Plaintiffs’ demand letter, rather than
Defendant’s expectations. (See Notice of Removal Ex. E.)
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the serious injuries alleged in the Complaint, the potential availability of punitive
damages, and Plaintiffs’ $150,000 demand prior to removal, we find that Defendant has shown by
a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy in this case exceeds $75,000. As
the amount in controversy requirement has been met and there is complete diversity among the

parties, we conclude that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly,
we deny Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand. An appropriate Order follows.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ John R. Padova, J.
______________________
John R. Padova, J.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10406615. Public record. Not legal advice.