Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00264/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00264-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sara Ahmadi
Plaintiff
United Airline
Defendant
United Continental Holdings, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SARA AHMADI, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

UNITED CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS, INC., 

d/b/a UNITED AIRLINE, and DOES 1-50,

 Defendants.

1:14-CV-00264-LJO-JLT

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

(Doc. 5)

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT TO PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Judges in the Eastern District of California carry the heaviest caseload in the nation, and this 

Court is unable to devote inordinate time and resources to individual cases and matters. This Court 

cannot address all arguments, evidence and matters raised by parties and addresses only the arguments, 

evidence and matters necessary to reach the decision in this order given the shortage of district judges 

and staff. The parties and counsel are encouraged to contact the offices of United States Senators 

Feinstein and Boxer to address this Court‟s inability to accommodate the parties and this action. The 

parties are required to consider consent to a Magistrate Judge to conduct all further proceedings in that 

the Magistrate Judges‟ availability is far more realistic and accommodating to parties than that of U.S. 

District Judge Lawrence J. O‟Neill who must prioritize criminal and older civil cases.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Sara Ahmadi (“Ahmadi”) brings this personal injury action against Defendant United 

Continental Holdings, Inc., doing business as United Airline (“United”). Before the Court is United‟s 

motion to dismiss Ahmadi‟s fourth cause of action for breach of contract and fifth cause of action for 

Case 1:14-cv-00264-LJO-JLT Document 8 Filed 03/31/14 Page 1 of 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

2

breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 12(b)(6). For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS with leave to amend United‟s 

motion to dismiss Ahmadi‟s fourth and fifth causes of action.

BACKGROUND

A. Facts 1

On or around December 15, 2011, Ahmadi purchased airline tickets to travel with United. On 

December 25, 2011, Ahmadi and her family traveled on United flight 6284 from Bakersfield, 

California to Denver, Colorado, and United flight 861 from Denver to Boston, Massachusetts. At the 

time of travel, Ahmadi was pregnant.

At Denver, while Ahmadi was seated aboard United flight 861, another passenger attempted to 

place a piece of luggage into an overhead bin above Ahmadi‟s head. The luggage fell on Ahmadi‟s 

head. As a result, Ahmadi suffered injuries including a miscarriage that terminated her pregnancy. 

B. Procedural History

On December 12, 2013, Ahmadi filed a complaint against United in Kern County Superior 

Court alleging five causes of action: 1) negligence; 2) res ipsa loquitur negligence; 3) violation of Cal. 

Civ. Code § 2100, et seq./negligence per se; 4) breach of contract; and 5) breach of implied covenant 

of good faith and fair dealing. On February 26, 2014, United removed the action to this Court on the 

basis of diversity jurisdiction. On March 5, 2014, United filed the instant motion to dismiss Ahmadi‟s 

fourth and fifth cause of action for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). On March 25, 2014, Ahmadi filed an opposition and United filed a reply. 

DISCUSSION

Motion to Dismiss

C. 12(b)(6) Failure to State a Claim

1. Legal Standard

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is a challenge to the sufficiency of 

the allegations set forth in the complaint. A dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper where there is 

 

1 The background facts are derived from the complaint. The Court accepts the factual allegations as true for purposes of 

this motion. Lazy Y. Ranch LTD. v. Behrens, 546 F.3d 580, 588 (9th Cir. 2008).

Case 1:14-cv-00264-LJO-JLT Document 8 Filed 03/31/14 Page 2 of 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

3

either a “lack of a cognizable legal theory” or “the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a 

cognizable legal theory.” Balisteri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). In 

considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court generally accepts as true the 

allegations in the complaint, construes the pleading in the light most favorable to the party opposing 

the motion, and resolves all doubts in the pleader's favor. Lazy Y. Ranch LTD., 546 F.3d at 588.

To survive a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must allege “enough 

facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 

570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the 

court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). “The plausibility standard is not akin to a „probability 

requirement,‟ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. 

(citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). “Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a 

defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility for entitlement to 

relief” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).

“While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed 

factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the „grounds' of his „entitlement to relief‟ requires 

more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will 

not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal citations omitted). Thus, “bare assertions ... amount[ing] 

to nothing more than a formulaic recitation of the elements ... are not entitled to be assumed true.” 

Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1951. A court is “free to ignore legal conclusions, unsupported conclusions, 

unwarranted inferences and sweeping legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations.” Farm 

Credit Services v. American State Bank, 339 F.3d 764, 767 (8th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). 

Moreover, a court “will dismiss any claim that, even when construed in the light most 

favorable to plaintiff, fails to plead sufficiently all required elements of a cause of action.” Student 

Loan Marketing Ass'n v. Hanes, 181 F.R.D. 629, 634 (S.D.Cal. 1998). In practice, “a complaint ... 

must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to 

sustain recovery under some viable legal theory.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 562 (quoting Car Carriers, 

Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 745 F.2d 1101, 1106 (7th Cir. 1984)). 

Case 1:14-cv-00264-LJO-JLT Document 8 Filed 03/31/14 Page 3 of 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

4

To the extent that the pleadings can be cured by the allegation of additional facts, the 

plaintiff should be afforded leave to amend. Cook, Perkiss and Liehe, Inc. v. Northern California 

Collection Serv. Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). 

2. Analysis

i. Breach of Contract

Ahmadi alleges that she entered into a contract with United for transportation services when 

she purchased airline tickets and that United breached the contract by failing to provide safe 

transportation for Ahmadi. United argues that Ahmadi fails to state a claim for breach of contract 

because the complaint merely alleges the possibility of misconduct by United and because United did 

not contract with Ahmadi to ensure her safety in all circumstances that may arise. 

In California, the elements of a breach of contract claim are: 1) existence of a valid contract; 

2) performance by the plaintiff or excuse for nonperformance; 3) breach by the defendant; and 4) 

damages. First Commercial Mortgage Co. v. Reece, 89 Cal. App. 4th 731, 745 (2001). 

Ahmadi alleges that she entered into a contract with United by “purchas[ing] a roundtrip 

airplane ticket.” (Doc. 1, p. 14). Ahmadi further alleges that “[t]he agreement stated that her trip 

would begin on December 25, 2011, from Bakersfield, CA on United Airline flight number 6284, with 

a stopover in Denver, Colorado” and that “[f]rom Denver, plaintiff would board United Airline flight 

number 861 and arrive in Boston, Massachusetts, at 4:12pm, ET.” Id. 

Ahmadi does not allege that United failed to perform the transportation service stated in the 

terms of the agreement. Rather, Ahmadi argues that United, as a common carrier, owed her, as its 

passenger, a duty to provide safe transport, and that such duty includes implicit promises by United

that their employees are trained, that defendants‟ employees would assist passengers in 

boarding or deplaning of the airplane, that defendants assured the passengers‟ comfort, 

that the defendants insured or assured the passengers‟ safety, that the defendants 

would prevent harm to the passengers, that the defendants‟ employees would assist 

with the seating of passengers, that the defendants‟ employees would assist with the 

placement of bags in the overhead bins, that the defendants would follow the industry 

standards, and that the defendants would follow the state or federal statutes.

Id. at p. 14-15. 

Ahmadi seeks to rely on a breach of contract theory of liability that California courts have 

Case 1:14-cv-00264-LJO-JLT Document 8 Filed 03/31/14 Page 4 of 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

5

long discredited. “Under varying circumstances, it has been repeatedly affirmed that if the complaint 

states a cause of action for breach of a promise set forth in the contract the action is to be regarded as 

ex contractu, but if it seeks damages arising out of the breach of a duty growing out of the contract, the 

action will be regarded as ex delicto.” De Mirjian v. Ideal Heating Corp., 91 Cal. App. 2d 905, 909 

(Cal. Ct. App. 1949) (citing Jones v. Kelly, 208 Cal. 251, 254 (1929), Peterson v. Sherman, 68 Cal. 

App. 2d 706, 711 (Cal. Ct. App. 1945)). See also, Peterson, 68 Cal. App. at 711 (“In seeking a 

determination whether an action is one in contract or in tort, the general rule is that the character of the 

action is to be determined by the nature of the grievance rather than by the form of pleading[.]”). 

“Accordingly, it has been held that a cause of action against a carrier for personal injuries, although 

pleaded as a breach of contract for safe conveyance, sounds in tort.” De Mirjian, 91 Cal. App. 2d at 

909 (citing Williamson v. Pac. Greyhound Lines, 67 Cal. App. 2d 250 (1944), Basler v. Sacramento 

Elec. Gas & Ry. Co., 166 Cal. 33 (1913), Rushing v. Pickwick Stages Sys., 113 Cal. App. 240 (1931)). 

See also, Williamson, 67 Cal. App. 2d at 253-54 (“Actions based on negligence through failure to 

perform duties created by a contractual relation, such as the relation between . . . a common carrier 

and a passenger, although containing elements of both contract and tort, are regarded as actions ex 

delicto, since negligence is considered the gravamen of the action.”) (emphasis in the original) 

(internal quotation and citation omitted). 

Because Ahmadi fails to allege the necessary elements of a breach of contract claim, and 

because Ahmadi cannot transform a tort claim into one for breach of contract simply by labeling it as 

such, United‟s motion to dismiss Ahmadi‟s fourth cause of action for breach of contract is GRANTED 

with leave to amend. 

ii. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

In her fifth cause of action, Ahmadi alleges that the agreement between United and Ahmadi 

includes an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under which United implicitly promised to 

provide the level of care and specific services quoted above. (Doc. 1, p. 15). Ahmadi claims that 

Defendants breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to 

train their employees, by failing to assist passengers in the boarding or deplaning of 

the airplane, by failing to assure the passengers‟ comfort, by failing to insure or assure 

the passengers‟ safety, by failing to prevent harm to the passengers, by failing to assist 

Case 1:14-cv-00264-LJO-JLT Document 8 Filed 03/31/14 Page 5 of 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

6

the passengers with their seating, by failing to assist with the placement of the luggage 

in overhead bins, by not following industry standards regarding passenger safety, and 

by not following the state or federal statutes.

(Doc 1, pp. 15-16).

“Under California law, every contract „imposes upon each party a duty of good faith and fair 

dealing in its performance and its enforcement.‟” Rosenfeld v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 732 F. 

Supp. 2d 952, 968 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (quoting McClain v. Octagon Plaza, LLC, 159 Cal.App.4th 784, 

796 (2008)). “In California, the factual elements necessary to establish a breach of the covenant of 

good faith and fair dealing are: (1) the parties entered into a contract; (2) the plaintiff fulfilled his 

obligations under the contract; (3) any conditions precedent to the defendant's performance occurred; 

(4) the defendant unfairly interfered with the plaintiff‟s rights to receive the benefits of the contract; 

and (5) the plaintiff was harmed by the defendant‟s conduct.” Id. (citing Judicial Council of California 

Civil Jury Instruction 325). “Importantly, to state a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good 

faith and fair dealing, a plaintiff must identify the specific contractual provision that was frustrated.” 

Plastino v. Wells Fargo Bank, 873 F. Supp. 2d 1179, 1191 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (internal quotation and 

citation omitted). “The implied covenant operates to protect the express covenants or promises of a

contract [and] cannot impose substantive duties or limits on the contracting parties beyond those 

incorporated in the specific terms of the parties‟ agreement.” Id. (internal quotation and citation 

omitted). See also, Pasadena Live, LLC v. City of Pasadena, 114 Cal. App. 4th 1089, 1094 (2004) 

(“The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is limited to assuring compliance with the 

express terms of the contract, and cannot be extended to create obligations not contemplated by the 

contract.”) (emphasis in the original) (internal quotation and citation omitted). 

Ahmadi does not allege that United breached an express term of their agreement. Plastino, 

873 F. Supp. 2d at 1191. Ahmadi also fails to identify the specific contractual provision that was 

frustrated. Id.; Pasadena Live, LLC, 114 Cal. App. 4th at 1094. Further, Ahmadi does not allege that 

United unfairly interfered with Ahmadi‟s right to receive the benefits of the contract – transportation

from Bakersfield, California to Boston, Massachusetts. Rosenfeld, 732 F. Supp. 2d at 968. Instead, 

Ahmadi again attempts to base a contract claim on United‟s alleged negligence. Such an approach is 

Case 1:14-cv-00264-LJO-JLT Document 8 Filed 03/31/14 Page 6 of 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

7

unsupported. 

Because Ahmadi fails to allege the elements of a breach of implied covenant cause of action, 

and because Ahmadi does not base the breach of implied covenant cause of action on the express terms 

of the agreement, United‟s motion to dismiss Ahmadi‟s fifth cause of action for breach of implied 

covenant of good faith and fair dealing is GRANTED with leave to amend.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, the Court DISMISSES with leave to amend Plaintiff Sara 

Ahmadi‟s fourth cause of action for breach of contract and fifth cause of action for breach of implied 

covenant of good faith and fair dealing against Defendant United Continental Holdings, Inc., doing 

business as United Airline. 

Plaintiff shall have one opportunity to file and serve an amended complaint in an attempt to 

cure the deficiencies described herein. Any such further amended complaint shall be filed and served 

within 20 days of electronic service of this order. Defendant no later than 20 days after service of the 

second amended complaint shall file a response thereto.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00264-LJO-JLT Document 8 Filed 03/31/14 Page 7 of 7