Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04026/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04026-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHELLE BANKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN AIRLINES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.19-cv-04026-JSC 

ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 19

Michele Banks alleges that American Airlines discriminated against her based on her race. 

She also brings a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. American moves to dismiss 

the complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal 

jurisdiction and alternatively, 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted. 

1 After consideration of the parties’ briefing and having had the benefit of oral argument

on October 10, 2019, the Court GRANTS American’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal 

jurisdiction. As Ms. Banks’ claims do not arise from American’s contacts with California, Ms. 

Banks has not met her burden of showing a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction over 

American in California. 

BACKGROUND

A. Complaint Allegations

Ms. Banks is a flight attendant for American. On August 22, 2017, as Ms. Banks was 

preparing a flight from Charlotte, North Carolina to Miami, Florida for boarding, she noticed 

several Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) violations, which she reported to the gate 

 

1 Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Dkt. 

Nos. 25 & 29.) 

Case 3:19-cv-04026-JSC Document 35 Filed 10/29/19 Page 1 of 9
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

agents. (Dkt. No. 12 at ¶ 12.) The gate agents reported the violations to the supervisor, who then 

came onto the plane and confronted Ms. Banks in a “threatening manner” about reporting the 

violations. (Id.) After the passengers had boarded the plane, the pilot removed Ms. Banks from 

the flight, announcing over the intercom that she was the reason for the delay in take-off and that 

she was being removed from her assignment. (Id.)

The pilot prepared a report regarding Ms. Banks’ removal from the flight, indicating that 

she was removed for “no reason.” (Id. at ¶ 13.) Ms. Banks believes that she was removed from 

duty and was intentionally embarrassed by the pilot because of her race. (Id.) When Ms. Banks 

complained about the discrimination, American continued to discriminate against her, in part by 

subjecting her to more drug tests than before, causing her to suffer such emotional distress she had 

to be out on leave. (Id. at ¶ 14.)

Ms. Banks filed a written complaint with “her Supervisor, her Supervisor’s Supervisor, her 

union representative, and American[’s] Human Resources department” (“HR”) detailing 

American’s discriminatory treatment. (Id. at ¶ 15.) After reporting the incident to HR, it took 

several months for Ms. Banks to receive a response. (Id. at ¶ 16.) HR ultimately represented that 

“it had conducted and completed a full investigation and found no discrimination”; however, HR’s 

response was brief and offered no explanation as to how they reached their conclusion. (Id. at 

¶17.) Further, none of the crew members who were present on the August 22 flight were 

contacted by HR about the incident. (Id.) As a result of the incident, Ms. Banks developed and 

was diagnosed with PTSD, anxiety, depression, and high blood pressure and had to take medical 

leave from work until early January 2018. (Id. at ¶¶ 19, 24.)

In November 2017, “the Phoenix base manager of American Airlines, Barbara Trellia,” 

met with Ms. Banks, her union representative, and the San Francisco base manager in Phoenix. 

(Id. at ¶ 20.) Ms. Trellia told Ms. Banks that “she needed to forget what happened and come back 

to work.” (Id. at ¶ 20 (internal quotation marks omitted).) Ms. Banks “flew home that night 

distraught,” and was so upset that “it caused her to have an automobile accident.” (Id.) Ms. Banks 

returned to work in January 2018, and on May 8, 2018, Ms. Bank’s supervisor and an HR staff 

member questioned Ms. Banks for two and a half hours about a letter from her previous attorney. 

Case 3:19-cv-04026-JSC Document 35 Filed 10/29/19 Page 2 of 9
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(Id. at ¶ 25.) Prior to filing the instant complaint, Ms. Banks filed an administrative complaint 

with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) and received a “right-to-sue 

letter” from DFEH and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). (Id. at ¶ 27.) 

B. Procedural Background

Ms. Banks filed her original complaint in California state court, and American removed 

that complaint to this Court based on diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (See

Dkt. No. 1 at 3.)2 

American moved to dismiss the original complaint, (see Dkt. No. 10), and Ms. Banks filed 

an amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 12). The amended complaint asserts claims for race 

discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), 

California Government Code § 12940(a), and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Dkt. No. 

12 at ¶¶ 28-45.) American filed the instant Motion to Dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction 

or alternatively, failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (Dkt. No. 19 (citing 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2); 12(b)(6)).) The motion is fully briefed and came before the Court for a 

hearing on October 10, 2019. (Dkt. Nos. 19, 27, 33.)

DISCUSSION

American moves to dismiss on the grounds that the Court has no personal jurisdiction over 

it because American is subject to neither general nor specific jurisdiction in California. 

Alternatively, American moves to dismiss each count pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state 

a claim. As discussed below, the Court finds that it does not have personal jurisdiction over 

American Airlines, and thus, need not reach the merits of the Rule 12(b)(6) contention. 

I. Rule 12(b)(2) Motion

On a defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), 

the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the 

defendant is proper. Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006). Where, as 

here, the motion is based on written materials rather than an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff need 

 

2 The requirements for diversity jurisdiction are met here in that Ms. Banks is a citizen of California and 

American Airlines is a Delaware corporation that maintains its principal place of business in Texas. (Dkt. 

No. 19 at 7.) Ms. Banks alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (Dkt. No. 12 at ¶ 4.)

Case 3:19-cv-04026-JSC Document 35 Filed 10/29/19 Page 3 of 9
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

only make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction to withstand the motion to dismiss. Mavrix 

Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218, 1223 (9th Cir. 2011). California’s long-arm 

statute allows the exercise of personal jurisdiction to the full extent permissible under the U.S. 

Constitution. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 125 (2014); see also Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §

410.10 (“[A] court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the 

Constitution of this state or of the United States.”). The California statute is coextensive with 

federal due process requirements, and thus, the jurisdictional analysis is the same. Schwarzenegger 

v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004). 

There are two categories of personal jurisdiction: general and specific. Bristol-Meyers 

Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773, 1780 (2017). General jurisdiction over a 

corporation is appropriate only in the forum where the corporation is incorporated or has its 

principal place of business, or in an exceptional case where the corporation’s contacts with the 

forum state are “so constant and pervasive as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum State.” 

Daimler AG, 571 U.S. at 122 (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 

U.S. 915, 919 (2011)). 

For the court to exercise specific jurisdiction, the suit must arise out of or relate to the 

defendant’s contacts with the forum state. Bristol-Meyers, 137 S. Ct. at 1780. “In other words, 

there must be ‘an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, [an] 

activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State and is therefore subject to the State’s 

regulation.’” Id. (quoting Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 919). Thus, “[s]pecific jurisdiction is confined 

to adjudication of issues deriving from, or connected with, the very controversy that establishes 

jurisdiction.” Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 919. 

A. General Personal Jurisdiction

A court has general personal jurisdiction over a corporate defendant in a forum where “the 

corporation is fairly regarded as at home.” Daimler AG, 571 U.S. at 137 (quoting Goodyear 

Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 924 (2011)). Absent “exceptional 

circumstances,” a court has general jurisdiction over a corporate defendant (1) where it is 

incorporated and (2) at its principal place of business. Id. at 138-139. Merely engaging “in a 

Case 3:19-cv-04026-JSC Document 35 Filed 10/29/19 Page 4 of 9
5

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

substantial, continuous, and systematic course of business” in a forum is insufficient for the court 

to exercise general personal jurisdiction over the defendant in that forum. Id. 

General jurisdiction over American is lacking in California because American is not 

incorporated nor has its principal place of business in California. Indeed, Ms. Banks’ opposition 

to the motion to dismiss does not even address general jurisdiction. Nonetheless, at oral argument 

Ms. Banks argued that Daimler held that state of incorporation and principal place of business are 

merely the “paradigm bases” for general jurisdiction. Her counsel asserted that the Court has 

general jurisdiction over American because it has one of its “huge hubs” in the state of California. 

If the Court were to accept this proffer, California would have general jurisdiction over nearly 

every corporation in the United States, as many corporations have “huge hubs” in California.

“Merely engaging ‘in a substantial, continuous, and systematic course of business’ in a 

particular jurisdiction is insufficient to permit the exercise of general personal jurisdiction there.” 

Agher v. Envoy Air Inc., No. CV-18-6753-R, 2018 WL 6444888, at *1 (C.D. Cal. October 12, 

2018) (citing Daimler AG, 571 U.S. at 137.) In Agher, for example, American was sued for 

wrongful termination by a plaintiff domiciled in California. Id. The court held that the plaintiff 

had not met its burden of showing general jurisdiction despite the allegations that “16% of 

American’s flights involve departures from or arrivals in California. Approximately 8500 

American employees... are based in California.” The court concluded that “American’s contacts 

with California are certainly not so substantial as to make American ‘at home’ in California.” Id. 

at 2. Ms. Banks has not identified any facts, alleged or otherwise, that would make this one of the

“exceptional case[s]” where American is essentially “at home” in California. American is an 

international airline that “can scarcely be deemed at home” in all the locations to which it flies. 

Daimler AG, 571 U.S. at n.20. 

Ms. Banks has not made a prima facie showing of general personal jurisdiction over 

American in California. 

B. Specific Personal Jurisdiction

The Ninth Circuit has a adopted a three-part test for analyzing a claim of specific 

jurisdiction: “(1) [t]he non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his activities or 

Case 3:19-cv-04026-JSC Document 35 Filed 10/29/19 Page 5 of 9
6

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

consummate some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or perform some act by which he 

purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking 

the benefits and protections of its laws;” (2) the claim must “arise[ ] out of or relate[ ] to the 

defendant’s forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must . . . be reasonable.” 

Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802. The plaintiff has “the burden of satisfying the first two 

prongs”; if it does so, the defendant must demonstrate that the court’s exercise of personal 

jurisdiction would be unreasonable. Id. “If any of the three requirements is not satisfied, 

jurisdiction in the forum would deprive the defendant of due process of law.” Pebble Beach Co., 

453 F.3d at 1155 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

1. Purposeful Availment

Ms. Banks must first demonstrate that American purposefully availed itself of the forum 

state—California. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802. She argues that American purposefully 

availed itself of the forum via “its continuous flights into and out of California—which accounts 

for approximately 13% of Defendant’s gross business dealings.” (Dkt. No. 27 at 10.) In addition, 

8% of American’s workforce consists of California-based personnel. (Id.) American does not 

address the “purposeful availment” prong of the specific jurisdiction analysis, however,

American’s contacts and presence in the state satisfy the first prong. See Roth v. Garcia Marquez, 

942 F.2d 617, 621 (9th Cir. 1991) (“In order to have purposefully availed oneself of conducting 

activities in the forum, the defendant must have performed some type of affirmative conduct 

which allows or promotes the transaction of business within the forum state.”). American’s flights 

to and from California indicate that it derives commercial benefit from the flight operations in the 

state and creates a substantial connection with the forum. Id. The same activity also shows how 

American purposefully directs its activities at residents in the forum. Id. 

American’s lack of personal jurisdiction argument rests on the second prong of the 

analysis; specifically, that Ms. Banks’ claims do not arise out of American’s California-related 

activities. 

2. Arising Out of Forum-Related Activities

Case 3:19-cv-04026-JSC Document 35 Filed 10/29/19 Page 6 of 9
7

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The second prong requires Ms. Banks to establish that her claims arose from American’s 

activities in California. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802. Ms. Banks fails to do so. Her

opposition baldly asserts that Ms. Banks experienced “continuous discrimination” by American 

“arising out of [its] contacts with California” (Dkt. No. 27 at 11); however, nothing related to the 

August 22 incident or any of the alleged subsequent discrimination arose from American’s 

contacts with California.

Ms. Banks attests that she “was hired out of San Francisco, California in 1989” and 

“[f]rom 2013 through December 2018,” she was a flight attendant based out of Arizona.3 (Dkt. 

No. 28 at ¶ 2(a).) She alleges that the August 2017 incident occurred on a flight departing from 

North Carolina to Florida. (Dkt. No. 12 at ¶ 12.) The subsequent acts of discrimination related to 

the HR investigation occurred in Arizona, where the drug test also occurred. (Dkt. No. 19-6 at 3.) 

Ms. Banks did reside in California and commuted to work in Arizona during the time in question 

(see Dkt. No. 19-5, Ex. E at ¶ 8); however, the allegedly discriminatory conduct did not occur in 

California and was otherwise unrelated to American’s contacts with the forum. The personal 

jurisdiction inquiry considers the defendant’s contacts with the forum state itself, not the 

defendant’s contacts with people who maintain their residence in the state. Walden v. Fiore, 571 

U.S. 277, 285-86 (2014); see also Hatset v. Century 21 Gold Coast Realty, 649 F. App’x 400 (9th 

Cir. 2016) (holding that personal jurisdiction did not exist where the only connection between the 

defendant and California was plaintiff’s California residency). In addition, “the formation of a 

contractual relationship with a resident is not, in itself, sufficient to create specific jurisdiction 

over a non-resident.” Del Toro v. Atlas Logistics, No. 1:12-CV-01535-AWI-BAM, 2013 WL 

796593, at *4 (E.D. Cal. March 4, 2013) (rejecting argument that defendant “availed itself to [the 

court’s] personal jurisdiction” by “reaching across state lines to contract employment services 

from [p]laintiff and other California residents”) (citing Burger King, 471 U.S. at 478). Thus, even 

if Ms. Banks entered into her employment contract with American in California, such 

 

3 Ms. Banks attests that she was transferred to San Francisco, California in December 2018, “where [she] 

remain[s] formally based while out on leave as a result of debilitating anxiety and PTSD stemming from 

Defendant’s wrongful conduct.” (Dkt. No. 28 at ¶ 2(b).) She further attests that she “stop[ped] working for 

American Airlines from May 9, 2018 until present.” (Id. at ¶ 17.) 

Case 3:19-cv-04026-JSC Document 35 Filed 10/29/19 Page 7 of 9
8

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

circumstance alone is insufficient to hail American into a California court for conduct that 

occurred outside the forum. See Agher, 2018 WL 644888 at *2.

Because the alleged discrimination did not arise out of American’s forum-related activities, 

the Court does not have specific jurisdiction over American. Accordingly, the Court does not 

address the reasonableness of the exercise of jurisdiction. See Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802

(noting that the burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate unreasonableness only if plaintiff 

satisfies the first two prongs); see also Pebble Beach Co., 453 F.3d at 1155 (“If any of the three 

requirements is not satisfied, jurisdiction in the forum would deprive the defendant of due process 

of law.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Ms. Banks’ insistence that if the court fails to find personal jurisdiction, it will contribute 

to a pattern of “unprosecuted constitutional violations” (Dkt. No. 27 at 11) misapprehends 

personal jurisdiction. Courts in other states have personal jurisdiction over Ms. Banks’ claims, 

thus the claims can be raised in those forums. For example, a Delaware or Texas district court 

would have general jurisdiction over American. A North Carolina district court might have 

specific jurisdiction over American because that is where the original incident occurred. See 

Bristol Meyers, 137 S. Ct. at 1780. Further, the suit could likely be brought in Arizona, as Ms. 

Banks’ “base hub” was in Phoenix, Arizona during the time of all of the allegations contained in 

her complaint. But Ms. Banks may not sue American in a California court merely because it is 

more convenient for her and her counsel. This Court cannot exercise specific personal jurisdiction 

over American Airlines. 

CONCLUSION

As there is no general jurisdiction over American in California and Ms. Banks’ claims do 

not arise out of American’s contacts with California, American’s motion to dismiss for lack of 

personal jurisdiction is GRANTED. The dismissal is without leave to amend as at oral argument 

Ms. Banks was unable to identify any additional facts related to the claims currently pled that 

would meet her prima facie personal jurisdiction burden. The dismissal is also without prejudice 

to Ms. Banks bringing her claims in a state with personal jurisdiction over American. As Ms. 

Case 3:19-cv-04026-JSC Document 35 Filed 10/29/19 Page 8 of 9
9

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Banks did not ask the case to be transferred to a court with personal jurisdiction, the Court 

declines to exercise its discretion to do so.

This Order disposes of Docket No. 12. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

October 29, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-04026-JSC Document 35 Filed 10/29/19 Page 9 of 9