Ayanna Hart v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. et al, No. 2:2017cv04695 - Document 53 (C.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOLLOWING THIS COURT'S ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT DELTA AIR LINES, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT signed by Judge Manuel L. Real. Defendant Delta Air Lines, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment 22 is GRANTED. See document for details. (gk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
27777 Franklin Road, Suite 2500 Southfield, MI 48034 (248) 351-3000 Ayanna Hart v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. et al Doc. 53 1 Scott R. Torpey (SBN 153763) storpey@jaffelaw.com 2 Justin M. Schmidt (SBN 309656) 3 jschmidt@jaffelaw.com JAFFE RAITT HEUER & WEISS, PC 4 27777 Franklin Road, Suite 2500 5 Southfield, MI 48034 (248) 351-3000 6 (248) 351-3082 (Fax) 7 Attorneys for Defendants Delta Air Lines, Inc., and 8 SkyWest Airlines, Inc. 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 13 AYANNA HART, 14 Plaintiff, 15 vs. 16 DELTA AIR LINES, INC., et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 21 22 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 2:17-cv-04695 Hon. Manuel L. Real STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOLLOWING THIS COURT’S ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT DELTA AIR LINES, INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. #35) Following this Court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of Defendant 23 Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”) and complete dismissal of all of Plaintiff’s claims 24 against Delta (Doc. #35), Delta submits this [Proposed] Statement of Uncontroverted 25 Facts and Conclusions of Law. 26 STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS 27 28 UNCONTROVERTED FACT 1. Delta has a service agreement with -1- Delta’s Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Decl. of Scott R. Torpey (“Torpey Case No. 2:17-cv-04695-R Dockets.Justia.com 1 SkyWest, a regional airline that operates regional flights under the mark “Delta Connection.” Decl.”), Ex. F: Delta’s Form 10-K, p. 3 of 109; Decl. of Sharon L. Fischer (“Fischer Decl.), Ex. N: Delta Connection Agreement with SkyWest, pp. 1, 38, Art. 1(A), 22(B); Court’s Order granting Delta’s Mot. for Summ J. (Doc. #35, Pg ID #582). 2. Delta pays SkyWest fixed rates for operating Delta Connection flights under this agreement. Torpey Decl., Ex. C: SkyWest Inc., Form 10-K, p. 4 of 164; Fischer Decl., Ex. N, pp. 4-13, Art. 3 (redacted as confidential and proprietary); Doc. #35, Pg ID #582. 3. Though Delta provides certain services to SkyWest, SkyWest is a distinct legal entity with a unique FAA operating certificate, employs its own flight staff, and operates its own flights, including the one Plaintiff took. Decl. of Todd Emerson (“Emerson Decl.”), ¶¶ 5-11; Torpey Decl., Ex. C, p. 23 of 164; id., Ex. D: FAA Airline Cert. Info.–Delta; id., Ex. E: FAA Airline Cert. Info.– SkyWest; Fischer Decl., ¶¶ 4-12; id., Ex. N, pp. 26-27, Art. 12(A)(B); Doc. #35, Pg ID #582. 4. Fischer Decl., ¶¶ 7-8; id., Ex. N, The underlying service agreement pp. 26-27, Art. 12(A)-(B); Doc. provides that neither Delta nor #35, Pg ID #582. SkyWest has supervisory power or control over the other’s employees, and the agreement expressly disclaims any agency relationship between them. 5. Plaintiff stated she chose the flight because the price and schedule fit her needs. Torpey Decl., Ex. G: Pl. Dep., 32:17-21; Doc. #35, Pg ID #582. 6. Plaintiff’s itinerary and check-in emails from Delta all stated the flight would be “operated by SkyWest d/b/a Delta Connection.” Torpey Decl., Ex. G, 26:12-28:11, 34:9-35:11, 36:2-38:10; id., Ex. H: Plaintiff’s itinerary and check-in emails regarding the Flight; Doc. #35, Pg ID #582. 2 3 4 5 6 7 27777 Franklin Road, Suite 2500 Southfield, MI 48034 (248) 351-3000 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Delta’s Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law -2Case No. 2:17-cv-04695-R 1 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 2 3 CONCLUSION OF LAW 1. Under California law, there are four elements to negligence: (1) duty, (2) breach, (3) causation, and (4) damages. Conroy v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 203 P.3d 1127, 1132 (Cal. 2009); Doc. #35, Pg ID #583 2. A principal is liable for the negligence of its actual or ostensible agent. Cal Civ. Code § 2338; Doc. #35, Pg ID #583 3. Delta did not directly breach any duty to Plaintiff. Conroy v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 203 P.3d 1127, 1132 (Cal. 2009); Doc. #35, Pg ID #583 4. Actual authority is that which “a principal intentionally confers upon the agent, or intentionally, or by want of ordinary care, allows the agent to believe himself to possess.” Cal. Civ. Code § 2316; Doc. #35, Pg ID #583 5. The right to control an actor is “a significant factor in defining an agency relationship.” Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 333 P.3d 723, 735 (Cal. 2014); Doc. #35, Pg ID #583 6. The California Supreme Court identified several factors that may bear on whether an agency relationship exists, including a right to control: (1) hiring, (2) direction, (3) supervision, (4) discipline, (5) discharge, and (6) relevant day-to-day operations. Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 333 P.3d 723, 739 (Cal. 2014); Doc. #35, Pg ID #583 7. Delta lacked control over the operation of the flight because Delta did not have the right to control any of the factors identified by the California Supreme Court with respect to the SkyWest flight crew, and Delta’s retention of the authority Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 333 P.3d 723, 735, 739 (Cal. 2014); Doc. #35, Pg ID #583 4 5 6 7 27777 Franklin Road, Suite 2500 Southfield, MI 48034 (248) 351-3000 8 9 SUPPORTING AUTHORITY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Delta’s Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law -3Case No. 2:17-cv-04695-R 1 to review SkyWest’s policies does not amount to control over SkyWest’s day-to-day operation of Delta Connection flights, let alone over the flight in question. 2 3 4 5 8. Shaw v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 798 F. Though a clause in the service agreement disclaiming an agency Supp. 1453, 1457 (D. Nev. 1992); Doc. relationship “is not controlling,” #35, Pg ID #583 the undisputed facts show that Delta lacked control over Delta Connection flight operations. 9. A reasonable jury could not find Haley v. United Airlines Inc., 2015 WL that an actual agency relationship 5139638, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 31, 2015); Doc. #35, Pg ID #583 existed between Delta and SkyWest’s flight crew, and therefore, the flight crew were not Delta’s actual agents. 6 7 27777 Franklin Road, Suite 2500 Southfield, MI 48034 (248) 351-3000 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10. Ostensible agency exists “when the principal intentionally, or by want of ordinary care, causes a third person to believe another to be his agent who is not really employed by him.” Cal. Civ. Code § 2300; Doc. #35, Pg ID #584 11. Three requirements must be met J.L. v. Children’s Inst., Inc., 99 Cal. to establish a principal’s liability Rptr. 3d 5, 16 (Ct. App. 2009); Doc. for an ostensible agent’s acts: (1) #35, Pg ID #584 the third party interacting with an agent must have a reasonable belief in the agent’s authority, (2) the belief must be generated by the principal’s act or neglect, and (3) the third party must not be negligent in holding her belief. 12. “Liability of the principal for the J.L. v. Children’s Inst., Inc., 99 Cal. Rptr. 3d 5, 16 (Ct. App. 2009); Doc. acts of an ostensible agent rests on the doctrine of ‘estoppel,’ the #35, Pg ID #584 essential elements of which are representations made by the principal, justifiable reliance by a Delta’s Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law -4Case No. 2:17-cv-04695-R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27777 Franklin Road, Suite 2500 Southfield, MI 48034 (248) 351-3000 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 third party, and a change of position from such reliance resulting in injury.” 13. Plaintiff’s belief that Delta operated the flight and had control over the flight crew was not generated by Delta’s act or omission because in compliance with federal aviation regulations and the contract of carriage between Delta and Plaintiff, Delta expressly and directly communicated to Plaintiff that the flight would be “operated by SkyWest d/b/a Delta Connection,” not by Delta itself. Because of this representation to Plaintiff, the fact that Delta licensed the Delta Connection brand name and mark to SkyWest is not enough to create a reasonable inference that Delta operated the flight. J.L. v. Children’s Inst., Inc., 99 Cal. Rptr. 3d 5, 16 (Ct. App. 2009); Doc. #35, Pg ID #584 14. Plaintiff’s belief that the SkyWest flight crew were Delta agents was unreasonable to the extent that Plaintiff ignored the direct communications to her regarding the flight’s operation. J.L. v. Children’s Inst., Inc., 99 Cal. Rptr. 3d 5, 16 (Ct. App. 2009); Doc. #35, Pg ID #584 Van Den Eikhof v. Hocker, 151 Cal. 15. Even if Plaintiff’s belief that Rptr. 456, 460 (Ct. App. 1978); Doc. Delta operated the flight were #35, Pg ID #584 reasonable, Plaintiff has not proffered evidence that she relied on Delta’s representations and changed her position to her detriment in reliance on that representation. 16. The SkyWest flight staff are not Delta’s ostensible agents. Delta’s Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law J.L. v. Children’s Inst., Inc., 99 Cal. Rptr. 3d 5, 16 (Ct. App. 2009); Van Den Eikhof v. Hocker, 151 Cal. Rptr. 456, -5Case No. 2:17-cv-04695-R 1 460 (Ct. App. 1978); Doc. #35, Pg ID #584 2 3 4 5 6 17. As there is no triable issue of fact indicating an actual or ostensible agency relationship between Delta and SkyWest’s flight crew, summary judgment must be granted on the negligence claim. Conroy v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 203 P.3d 1127, 1132 (Cal. 2009); Cal Civ. Code § 2338; Cal. Civ. Code § 2316; Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 333 P.3d 723, 735, 739 (Cal. 2014); Haley v. United Airlines Inc., 2015 WL 5139638, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 31, 2015); Cal. Civ. Code § 2300; J.L. v. Children’s Inst., Inc., 99 Cal. Rptr. 3d 5, 16 (Ct. App. 2009); Van Den Eikhof v. Hocker, 151 Cal. Rptr. 456, 460 (Ct. App. 1978); Doc. #35, Pg ID #585 18. In California, “there is no independent tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress. The tort is negligence, a cause of action in which a duty to the plaintiff is an essential element.” Plaintiff concedes this claim. Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 863 P.2d 795, 807 (Cal. 1993); Doc. #35, Pg ID #585 7 27777 Franklin Road, Suite 2500 Southfield, MI 48034 (248) 351-3000 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 19. The negligent infliction of emotions distress claim fails both 863 P.2d 795, 807 (Cal. 1993); Doc. #35, Pg ID #585 because it is not independent of the negligence claim and because Delta did not owe a duty to Plaintiff through SkyWest’s operation of the flight. 20. Negligence per se is an evidentiary presumption provided by the California Evidence Code, it does not “state an independent cause of action.” Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Ctr., 140 Cal. App. 4th 1256, 45 Cal. Rptr. 3d 222, 243 (Ct. App. 2006); Doc. #35, Pg ID #585 21. The negligence per se claim also fails because it is not an independent claim and no reasonable jury could find that Delta owed a duty to Plaintiff in the operation of the SkyWest Quiroz v. Seventh Ave. Ctr., 140 Cal. App. 4th 1256, 45 Cal. Rptr. 3d 222, 243 (Ct. App. 2006); Doc. #35, Pg ID #585 Delta’s Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law -6Case No. 2:17-cv-04695-R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27777 Franklin Road, Suite 2500 Southfield, MI 48034 (248) 351-3000 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 flight. 22. To state an unfair competition claim under California Business and Professions Code § 17200, “a plaintiff must allege that the defendant committed a business act that is either fraudulent, unlawful, or unfair.” California Business and Professions Code § 17200; Levine v. Blue Shield of Cal., 189 Cal. App. 4th 1117, 117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 262, 277 (Ct. App. 2010); Doc. #35, Pg ID #585 23. The unfair competition claim fails because a reasonable jury could not find that the SkyWest flight staff are Delta’s actual or ostensible agents, Delta lacked operational control over the flight, and it could not have intervened, and because Plaintiff fails to offer any facts regarding actions of omissions by Delta that were unfair, fraudulent, or unlawful. California Business and Professions Code § 17200; Levine v. Blue Shield of Cal., 189 Cal. App. 4th 1117, 117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 262, 277 (Ct. App. 2010); Doc. #35, Pg ID #585 24. Plaintiff’s interpretation of the contract of carriage it contained a promise “that [Delta] would remove or reassign dangerous or intoxicated passengers” and “protect [passengers] from belligerent drunks on Delta flights” is unconvincing because Delta’s reservation of the right to reassign a seat or refuse to transport a passenger is not an affirmative promise to do so. California Business and Professions Code § 17200; Levine v. Blue Shield of Cal., 189 Cal. App. 4th 1117, 117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 262, 277 (Ct. App. 2010); Doc. #35, Pg ID #585-86 25. Plaintiff has not identified any unfair, fraudulent, or unlawful business practice by Delta, so summary judgment is appropriate as to this claim. California Business and Professions Code § 17200; Levine v. Blue Shield of Cal., 189 Cal. App. 4th 1117, 117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 262, 277 (Ct. App. 2010); Doc. #35, Pg ID #586 26. Defendant Delta Air Lines, Inc.’s Doc. #35, Pg ID #586 Motion for Summary Judgment is Delta’s Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law -7Case No. 2:17-cv-04695-R 1 GRANTED. 2 3 Dated: March 23, 2018 JAFFE RAITT HEUER & WEISS, PC 4 By: /s/Scott R. Torpey Scott R. Torpey (SBN 153763) Justin M. Schmidt (SBN 309656) Attorneys for Def. Delta Air Lines, Inc. 5 6 7 27777 Franklin Road, Suite 2500 Southfield, MI 48034 (248) 351-3000 8 9 10 Dated: March 28, 2018 11 12 Honorable Manuel L. Real United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Delta’s Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law -8Case No. 2:17-cv-04695-R
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
