The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
PERVENIA BROWN, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-932
8
Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S
9 COMPLAINT
v.
10
HORIZON AIR,
11
Defendant.
12
13
1. INTRODUCTION
14
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Horizon Air’s motion to
15
dismiss Plaintiff Pervenia Brown’s complaint. Dkt. No. 8. The Court has considered
16
the papers submitted in support of and opposition to the motion, and being
17
otherwise informed, and DISMISSES Brown’s complaint for the reasons explained
18
below.
19
2. BACKGROUND
20
Brown alleges that she suffered a back injury “due to the rough landing of
21
Horizon Air Flight #2347” from Boise, Idaho to Seattle, Washington on January 23,
22
2021. Dkt. No. 4 ¶¶ 3-4. Although Brown does not specify any causes of action, she
23
1 alleges that she “is legally entitled to recover” damages because of Horizon’s
2 “negligent rough landing[.]” Id. ¶ 7. She also alleges that Horizon Air owed her a
3 “duty to use ordinary care in handling her claim[,]” but that it failed to cover “the
4 full cost of [her] medical expenses” and pain and suffering. Id. ¶ 14-15. Brown seeks
5 one million dollars “in compensatory damages for emotional pain and suffering,
6 inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment in life.” Id. ¶ 16.
7 3. DISCUSSION
8 3.1 The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Brown does not plead jurisdiction. Because federal courts have “limited
9
jurisdiction,” they presumably “lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears
10
affirmatively from the record.” DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342
11
(1991). Federal courts may possess either diversity or federal-question jurisdiction.
12
Diversity jurisdiction exists “where the amount in controversy” exceeds
13
$75,000 and the parties are of diverse citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Brown names
14
only one Defendant, Horizon Air, headquartered in Washington. Dkt. No. 4 ¶ 2.
15
Because Brown resides in Tukwila, Washington, id. ¶ 1, the parties are not diverse.
16
Federal-question jurisdiction covers “all civil actions arising under the
17
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. To qualify, a
18
federal question must be presented on the face of the complaint, not as an
19
anticipated defense. Rivet v. Regions Bank of Louisiana, 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998).
20
Courts call this requirement as the “well-pleaded complaint rule.” 13D Charles Alan
21
Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 3566 (3d ed.).
22
23
1 Although Brown does not identify specific causes of action, her claims sound
2 in negligence. She says the flight ended in a “negligent rough landing” and Horizon
3 Air owed her “a duty of ordinary care.” Dkt. No. 4 ¶¶ 7, 14. The Federal Aviation
4 Act (FAA) does not create a federal cause of action for personal injury suits, Martin
5 ex rel. Heckman v. Midwest Exp. Holdings, Inc., 555 F.3d 806, 808 (9th Cir. 2009),
6 and Brown raises no other relevant federal statute or standard. As a result, the
7 Court reads Brown’s claims to “replicate a garden variety state-law tort claims
8 case[.]” Brown v. Alaska Air Grp., Inc., No. CV-11-0091-WFN, 2011 WL 2746251, at
9 *5 (E.D. Wash. July 14, 2011). Thus, Brown’s complaint does not plead a federal
10 question, and so she fails to establish subject matter jurisdiction under the well-
11 pleaded complaint rule.
12
3.2 Even if the Court had subject jurisdiction over this matter, Plaintiff’s
claims are time-barred.
13
Brown alleges that she was injured on January 23, 2021. As noted above, the
14
Court construes her claim as sounding in negligence. The statute of limitations for a
15
negligence claim in Washington is three years. RCW 4.16.080(2). Brown filed her
16
complaint on June 25, 2024, which was five months too late to be considered timely.
17
18 3.3 Amendment would be futile.
19 Courts are not to “dismiss a pro se complaint without leave to amend unless
20 ‘it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by
21 amendment.’” Rosati v. Igbinoso, 791 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting
22 Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012)). Leave to amend would be
23
1 futile, as further factual embellishment would not cure the deficiencies identified
2 above.
3 4. CONCLUSION
4 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Brown’s complaint and directs the Clerk
5 to close this case.
6 Dated this 1st day of November, 2024.
7
A
8
Jamal N. Whitehead
9 United States District Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23