Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-00732/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-00732-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 310
Nature of Suit: Airplane Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

The Court denies Defendant’s administrative motion to file a

supplemental memorandum regarding the statute of limitations issue. 

Although the Court appreciates Defendant’s acknowledgment of its

citation error, there is no need to reargue issues already

addressed in its opposition.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY HANNI, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly

situated, and CHASE L. COSTELLO, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., and DOES 1

through 20, inclusive,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 08-00732 CW

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

OF DISMISSAL OF FALSE

IMPRISONMENT CLAIM;

DENYING MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE

PROPOSED FOURTH

AMENDED COMPLAINT;

AND DENYING MOTION

FOR CLASS

CERTIFICATION

Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ motions for

(1) reconsideration of the July 11, 2008 Order dismissing the false

imprisonment cause of action, (2) leave to file a proposed fourth

amended complaint and (3) class certification of a false

imprisonment claim. Defendant opposes the motions.1

 The matter

was taken under submission on the papers. Having considered all of

the papers filed by the parties, the Court grants Plaintiffs’

Case 4:08-cv-00732-CW Document 390 Filed 04/19/10 Page 1 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

motion for reconsideration, denies Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to

file their proposed fourth amended complaint and denies Plaintiffs’

motion for class certification. 

BACKGROUND

The parties are familiar with the facts of this case, which

have been addressed previously; the Court will only focus on the

facts relevant to this motion.

Kathleen Hanni was the only named plaintiff in the first

complaint filed in this case. Defendant moved pursuant to Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss it. The

Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, giving Ms.

Hanni leave to file an amended complaint. April 25, 2008 Order. 

On May 15, 2008, Ms. Hanni filed her first amended complaint (1AC). 

She alleged claims for false imprisonment, negligence, breach of

contract, fraud, conversion, civil conspiracy and a claim pursuant

to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO),

18 U.S.C. § 1961. Defendant again moved pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the 1AC.

On July 11, 2008, the Court issued an order granting the

motion in part and denying it in part. The Court dismissed with

prejudice Ms. Hanni’s claims for false imprisonment, intentional

infliction of emotional distress and fraud and dismissed in part

her claim for breach of contract. The Court dismissed without

prejudice Ms. Hanni’s claims for civil conspiracy and RICO. July

11, 2008 Order at 6, 16, 19-20. The Court gave Ms. Hanni leave to

file a second amended complaint that could include: (1) a limited 

negligence claim; (2) a limited breach of contract claim; (3) a

Case 4:08-cv-00732-CW Document 390 Filed 04/19/10 Page 2 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Hereinafter, Timothy Hanni and Chase Costello will be

referred to as Plaintiffs unless otherwise specified.

3

conversion claim; and (4) a claim for civil conspiracy. July 11,

2008 Order at 20.

On July 31, 2008, Ms. Hanni filed her second amended complaint

(2AC). On August 12, 2008, the parties stipulated that Ms. Hanni

would file a third amended complaint (3AC) that included Ms.

Hanni’s husband, Timothy Hanni, and sons, Chase Costello and Landen

Hanni, as named plaintiffs and that modified the allegations of the

complaint. Stipulation to File an Amended Complaint, August 12,

2008. On August 13, 2008, Plaintiffs filed their 3AC alleging

claims for negligence, breach of contract, conversion and civil

conspiracy. 3AC, August 13, 2008 ¶ 87-109. The Court dismissed

the civil conspiracy cause of action and allowed Plaintiffs to

pursue the negligence, breach of contract and conversion causes of

action. November 21, 2008 Order at 17. 

On July 10, 2009, in response to discovery orders issued by a

Magistrate Judge compelling the production of Ms. Hanni’s medical

records, Kathleen and Landen Hanni moved voluntarily to dismiss

their claims. The Court granted their motion on July 20, 2009. 

Thus, Timothy Hanni and Chase Costello remain as named Plaintiffs

in this case.2

On January 15, 2010, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for

class certification, granted Defendant’s motion for summary

judgment on the remaining causes of action and denied Colleen

O’Conner’s motion for intervention. In the same order, the Court

granted Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a motion for

Case 4:08-cv-00732-CW Document 390 Filed 04/19/10 Page 3 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

reconsideration regarding the July 11, 2008 Order dismissing the

false imprisonment cause of action. As instructed by the Court,

Plaintiffs combined that motion with a motion for leave to file a

fourth amended complaint and a motion to certify a false

imprisonment class. 

DISCUSSION

I. Motion for Reconsideration

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs have no standing to bring a

motion for reconsideration because of the unique procedural history

of this case. When the Court dismissed the false imprisonment

cause of action with prejudice on July 11, 2008, Kathleen Hanni was

the only named Plaintiff in the case. Ms. Hanni’s third amended

complaint, filed August 13, 2008, included her husband, Timothy

Hanni, and sons, Chase Costello and Landen Hanni as plaintiffs. 

Almost one year later, on July 20, 2009, the Court granted Kathleen

and Landen Hanni’s motion to dismiss their claims voluntarily. 

Thus, since that date, Timothy Hanni and Chase Costello have been

the only named Plaintiffs in the case. 

Defendant argues that, because Timothy Hanni and Chase

Costello were not named plaintiffs when the Court dismissed the

false imprisonment claim, they cannot bring the instant motion for

reconsideration. Defendant asserts that, instead, the present

motion is Timothy Hanni and Chase Costello’s first attempt at

asserting a false imprisonment claim, and it should be treated

solely as a motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint. 

The Court disagrees.

Although the false imprisonment claim asserted in the original

Case 4:08-cv-00732-CW Document 390 Filed 04/19/10 Page 4 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 5

and first amended complaints specifically pertained to Kathleen

Hanni’s experiences on December 29, 2006, she sought to represent a

class of similarly situated passengers, in which Timothy Hanni and

Chase Costello would be included. Moreover, when dismissing the

false imprisonment claim, the Court relied on arguments made by

Defendant that applied to the entire class, and it now appears that

those arguments may not be well-taken. Therefore, the Court grants

Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. 

II. Motion for Leave to File Proposed Amended Complaint

A. Legal Standard

The parties dispute the legal standard under which the Court

should consider Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a fourth

amended complaint. Defendant argues that Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 16(b)(4) provides the proper standard and Plaintiffs

argue that Rule 15(a)(2) is the proper standard. Under Rule

16(b)(4), a party may modify a scheduling order “only for good

cause and with the judge’s consent.” Under Rule 15(a)(2), a party

may amend its pleading with the court’s leave, which should be

“freely give[n] when justice so requires.” These differing

standards pertain to two different types of motions. Here,

Plaintiffs are not attempting directly to modify the case

management scheduling order. Rather, they seek to add a claim to

their complaint. Accordingly, Rule 15(a)(2) applies. 

Under this standard, four factors are relevant to whether a

motion for leave to amend should be denied: undue delay, bad faith

or dilatory motive, futility of amendment, and prejudice to the

opposing party. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The

Case 4:08-cv-00732-CW Document 390 Filed 04/19/10 Page 5 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 6

Ninth Circuit holds that these factors are not of equal weight;

specifically, delay alone is insufficient ground for denying leave

to amend. United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 980 (9th Cir.

1981). Further, the "liberality in granting leave to amend is not

dependent on whether the amendment will add causes of action or

parties.” DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th

Cir. 1987). Rather, the court should consider whether the proposed

amendment would cause the opposing party undue prejudice, is sought

in bad faith, or constitutes an exercise in futility. Id. (citing

Acri v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 781 F.2d

1393, 1398-99 (9th Cir. 1986)).

B. Timeliness and Futility of False Imprisonment Claim

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ efforts to re-allege their

false imprisonment claim in light of “newly discovered” evidence is

barred by the statute of limitations and thus untimely and futile. 

Under American Pipe and Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538

(1974), and Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (1983),

the filing of a class action complaint tolls the running of the

applicable statue of limitations for all proposed members of the

putative class as to all asserted claims. The tolling period ends,

and the statute runs again, once class certification is granted or

denied. Tosti v. City of Los Angeles, 754 F.2d 1485, 1488 (9th

Cir.1985). 

Defendant does not dispute that the original complaint was

timely filed within the one-year statute of limitations for false

imprisonment or that the claim was asserted on behalf of the named

Plaintiff at the time, Kathleen Hanni, and unnamed class members. 

Case 4:08-cv-00732-CW Document 390 Filed 04/19/10 Page 6 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 7

Plaintiffs’ alleged injury occurred on December 29, 2006 and

Kathleen Hanni filed her complaint on December 28, 2007, one day

before the statute of limitations would have expired. Although the

Court dismissed the false imprisonment cause of action on July 11,

2008, the statute of limitations clock did not begin to run again

on that date. Defendant has not provided any authority for the

proposition that the Court’s July 11, 2008 dismissal of the false

imprisonment cause of action is considered a denial of class

certification for purposes of ending the American Pipe tolling

period. 

Moreover, even if American Pipe tolling did not apply,

Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment to the complaint relates back to the

original filing for statute of limitations purposes because it

arises out of the same conduct set out in the original pleading. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c); Martell v. Trilogy, Ltd., 872 F.2d 322, 325

(9th Cir. 1989). 

Further, the equities weigh against disallowing Plaintiffs’

false imprisonment claim based on a violation of the statute of

limitations. As discussed below, Defendant’s argument that it had

the legal authority to keep Plaintiffs on the aircraft for the

length of time it did may not be correct legally or factually. 

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ false imprisonment claim is not time barred

and is not futile. 

C. Prejudice and Bad Faith

Defendant asserts that it will suffer prejudice if the Court

grants Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. The first

complaint in this case was filed over two years ago and Defendant

Case 4:08-cv-00732-CW Document 390 Filed 04/19/10 Page 7 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3Defendant also argues that the false imprisonment claim is

preempted by federal law, citing 49 U.S.C. § 41713(b) and Air

Transport Ass’n v. Cuomo, 520 F.3d 218, 223 (2d Cir. 2008). 

However, the Court previously determined that this claim is not

8

seeks to litigate this case as quickly as possible. Because there

was no claim for false imprisonment when the parties undertook

discovery in this case, discovery will have to be reopened if the

Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to amend. Although conducting

further discovery in this case will delay the case, “delay alone,

no matter how lengthy, is an insufficient ground for denial of

leave to amend.” United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 980 (9th

Cir. 1981); see also Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1191

(9th Cir. 1973). “The purpose of the litigation process is to

vindicate meritorious claims. Refusing, solely because of delay,

to permit an amendment to a pleading in order to state a

potentially valid claim would hinder this purpose while not

promoting any other sound judicial policy.” Howey, 481

F.2d at 1191. Moreover, Defendant has not submitted any evidence

to suggest that Plaintiffs have brought their motion to amend in

bad faith or with a dilatory motive. 

D. Sufficiency of False Imprisonment Allegations

Defendant also argues that Plaintiffs’ proposed false

imprisonment claim is insufficiently plead. False imprisonment

consists of “the nonconsensual, intentional confinement of a

person, without lawful privilege.” Fermino v. Fedco, Inc., 7 Cal.

4th 701, 715 (1994). Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ new

complaint does not contain allegations that satisfy the “without

lawful privilege” element of their false imprisonment claim.3 In

Case 4:08-cv-00732-CW Document 390 Filed 04/19/10 Page 8 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

preempted by federal law. See Docket No. 55 at 6-15.

9

the July 11, 2008 Order dismissing this cause of action with

prejudice, Defendant cited, and the Court relied on, Federal

Aviation Regulations that give pilots broad authority over

passengers and the operation of an aircraft. See 14 C.F.R.

§ 91.3(a) (“The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly

responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of

that aircraft”); id. § 121.533(d) (“Each pilot in command of an

aircraft is, during flight time, in command of the aircraft and

crew and is responsible for the safety of the passengers,

crewmembers, cargo, and airplane”). Defendant argued that these

regulations provided a lawful privilege for the pilot to detain the

passengers. The Court concluded that a decision by the pilot to

keep passengers on an aircraft for their safety for an extended

period of time was lawful. 

However, Plaintiffs have presented evidence that suggests that

the pilot of their aircraft did not order the detention of the

passengers, but rather wanted to allow the passengers to disembark. 

There is evidence that the pilot was denied permission to do so by

Defendant’s corporate managers and airport ground personnel. The

regulations Defendant relied upon do not provide that such

officials are authorized to hold passengers against their will. 

Plaintiffs’ evidence suggests that they were confined on the

aircraft without good reason, not, as Defendant contends, for their

safety and convenience. Thus, Defendant’s prior grounds for

dismissal of the false imprisonment claim based on a pilot’s legal

Case 4:08-cv-00732-CW Document 390 Filed 04/19/10 Page 9 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 10

authority to detain Plaintiffs on the aircraft for over nine hours

for safety reasons may be factually and legally incorrect. 

Although other federal laws and regulations may grant Defendant’s

corporate managers, ground crew or some other relevant individuals

the legal authority to detain passengers on an aircraft for an

extended period of time, Defendant has not yet brought them to the

Court’s attention. Nor is it clear that the passengers were

detained for the reasons contemplated by the regulations Defendant

cites. 

As noted above, another element of a false imprisonment claim

is that an individual’s confinement must be “nonconsensual.” 

Airline passengers initially consent to remaining on an aircraft

for an extended period of time when they buy a ticket and board the

aircraft. Passengers wishing to withdraw this consent must clearly

express this desire to the flight crew. See Schroeder v. Lufthansa

German Airlines, 875 F.2d 613, 621-22 (7th Cir. 1989). The Court

previously determined that Kathleen Hanni’s allegations in the

original complaint established that she had explicitly withdrawn

her consent, satisfying this element of the cause of action. 

Kathleen Hanni alleged that she “expressed” to the flight crew her

desire to exit the aircraft. Plaintiffs include the identical

allegation in the proposed fourth amended complaint. However,

because this allegation concerned Kathleen Hanni, who is no longer

a plaintiff in the case, it does not satisfy the consent element of

a false imprisonment claim with respect to the current Plaintiffs

in the case, Timothy Hanni and Chase Costello. Plaintiffs have not

specifically alleged that they directly notified the flight crew

Case 4:08-cv-00732-CW Document 390 Filed 04/19/10 Page 10 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 11

that they withdrew their consent to be on the aircraft. Therefore,

Plaintiffs have not plead facts that could prove the

“nonconsensual” element of their false imprisonment claim. 

Plaintiffs will be given one further opportunity to amend

their complaint if they can truthfully allege that they each

personally notified the flight crew that they wished to be

deplaned. 

III. Motion for Class Certification

Plaintiffs propose a nationwide class of all passengers, or in

the alternative, a class of California residents, who traveled on

American Airlines flights scheduled to land or take off from

Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport on December 29, 2006, and

were confined on the ground in an American Airlines’ aircraft for

three or more hours. 

Plaintiffs assert that this action falls under the ambit of

Rule 23(b)(3) because common issues will predominate over any

individualized issues and because a class action is the superior

method of adjudicating this matter. “The Rule 23(b)(3)

predominance inquiry tests whether proposed classes are

sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” 

Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623 (1997). “When

common questions present a significant aspect of the case and they

can be resolved for all members of the class in a single

adjudication, there is clear justification for handling the dispute

on a representative rather than an individual basis.” Hanlon v.

Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal

quotation marks omitted). 

Case 4:08-cv-00732-CW Document 390 Filed 04/19/10 Page 11 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 12

To determine whether the predominance requirement is

satisfied, “courts must identify the issues involved in the case

and determine which are subject to ‘generalized proof,’ and which

must be the subject of individualized proof.” In re Dynamic Random

Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litig., 2006 WL 1530166, at *6 (N.D.

Cal.). 

As noted in the Court’s January 15, 2010 Order, which denied

class certification of Plaintiffs’ negligence, breach of contract

and conversion claims, there are individualized issues about what

happened on December 29th from airport to airport, from aircraft to

aircraft, and from person to person. Some aircraft were permitted

to dock during their delay whereas others waited on the tarmac. 

Some passengers on aircraft on the tarmac were removed from the

aircraft and transported by bus to the terminal whereas others

stayed on the aircraft during the entirety of the delay. 

In addition, to prevail on a false imprisonment claim, class

members will have the establish that, after they willingly boarded

an aircraft, they withdrew their consent and made that withdrawal

known to Defendant. Plaintiffs cite no authority for their claim

that the Court may “presume” a lack of consent for each class

member based on the length of the flight delay. Reply at 13. The

issue of consent is individual. This aspect of a false

imprisonment claim precludes a finding that common issues

predominate. 

Rule 23(b)(3) also requires that class resolution must be

“superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient

adjudication of the controversy.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). “The

Case 4:08-cv-00732-CW Document 390 Filed 04/19/10 Page 12 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 13

policy at the very core of the class action mechanism is to

overcome the problem that small recoveries do not provide the

incentive for any individual to bring a solo action prosecuting his

or her rights.” Amchem Prod., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 617

(1997). However, if “each class member has to litigate numerous

and substantial separate issues to establish his or her right to

recover individually, a class action is not ‘superior.’” Zinser v.

Accufix Research Institute, Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1192 (2001). The

complexities of this class action weigh heavily against class

certification. The evidence suggests that there are too many

individual issues for the Court to manage for class adjudication to

be deemed superior.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court (1) grants Plaintiffs’

motions for reconsideration, (2) denies Plaintiffs’ motion to file

their proposed fourth amended complaint and (3) denies Plaintiffs’

motion for class certification. Docket No. 369. The Court also

denies Defendant’s administrative motion to file a supplemental

memorandum. Docket No. 383. Plaintiffs may file a new proposed

fourth amended complaint within one week from the date of this

order. Defendant may file a motion to dismiss, not to exceed seven

pages, one week thereafter; Plaintiffs’ opposition, not to exceed

five pages, shall be due one week later and Defendant’s reply, not

to exceed four pages, shall be due one week thereafter. The matter

will be taken under submission and decided on the papers. The

Court vacates the case management conference scheduled for April

20, 2010 and reschedules a further case management conference for

Case 4:08-cv-00732-CW Document 390 Filed 04/19/10 Page 13 of 14
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 14

June 29, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 04/19/10 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:08-cv-00732-CW Document 390 Filed 04/19/10 Page 14 of 14