1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. ______________

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff Minely Diaz (“Plaintiff”), by and through her counsel, files this Class 

Action Complaint against Spirit Airlines, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Spirit”) on behalf of herself and 

on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, and alleges, upon personal knowledge as to 

her own actions, and upon investigation of counsel as to all other matters, as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

2. In the midst of the greatest public health and economic crisis in living memory, 

Defendant, one of the nation’s largest air carriers, has sought to shift its losses onto its innocent 

passengers, furthering the financial hardship endured by people across the country. 

3. Each of Defendant’s airfare tickets encompasses a contractual agreement between 

it and its passengers. That agreement gives passengers the right to a refund if their flight is 

cancelled.

MINELY DIAZ, on behalf of herself and all 

others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

SPIRIT AIRLINES INC., a Delaware 

Corporation, 

Defendant.

CLASS ACTION

(JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)

Case 0:20-cv-60933-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2020 Page 1 of 13
2

4. With mounting cancellations due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Defendant has 

sought to refrain from paying out the refunds for cancelled flights to which its passengers are 

entitled.

5. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated 

individuals (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) who were deprived of refunds for cancelled flights.

6. Defendant has quietly sought to force its passengers to endure the financial losses 

that its own contract created for it in the entirely foreseeable scenario that world occurrences would 

disrupt the domestic travel industry.

7. Defendant’s uniform conduct is equally applicable to the class. Plaintiff brings this 

class action against Defendant for breach of contract and seeks an order requiring Defendant to, 

among other things: (1) refrain from issuing coupons in lieu of refunds to any Class member who 

has not requested coupons; and (2) pay damages and/or restitution to Plaintiff and Class members.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). The 

amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000 and 

is a class action in which there are numerous class members who are citizens of states different 

from Defendant. 

9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it conducts significant, 

substantial, and not-isolated business activities in Florida, is headquartered in Florida, and a 

substantial portion of the acts complained of took place in Florida.

10. Venue is proper in this district because Defendant conducts business and has its 

principal place of business in this District and many of the events that gave rise to Plaintiffs’ claims 

occurred in this District.

Case 0:20-cv-60933-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2020 Page 2 of 13
3

PARTIES

11. Plaintiff Minely Diaz (f/k/a Minely Martinez) is an individual and a citizen of New 

Jersey.

12. Defendant Spirit Airlines Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of 

Delaware with its principal place of business located in Miramar, Florida.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

13. Spirit is a major north American airline company that carried approximately 34

million passengers in 2019.

14. Spirit is based in Miramar, Florida, and its flight network includes regular routes to 

48 destinations throughout the continental United States, as well as in the Caribbean, Mexico, and 

South America.

15. Defendant offers and sells flight tickets directly to customers, who make monetary 

payments to Defendant in exchange for a selected flight itinerary that conforms to customer’s 

specifically selected travel schedule. 

16. Defendant collects passenger identification information as part of each ticket sale, 

including name, address, and telephone information, and each ticket purchased guarantees 

customers a seat on a specific, scheduled flight departing at a specific time from a specific airport.

17. As part of each ticket purchase, Defendant makes a promise and warranty to 

customers that in the event of a flight cancellation or substantially interrupted flight, customers are 

entitled to a full cash refund.

18. Passengers’ purchase and use of Defendant’s services is governed by Defendant’s 

Contract of Carriage.

Case 0:20-cv-60933-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2020 Page 3 of 13
4

19. Defendant’s Contract of Carriage has been updated a number of times in recent 

years, including December 7, 2018, February 24, 2020, and May 4, 2020.

20. The salient terms of Defendant’s Contract of Carriage for purposes of Plaintiff and 

the Class are the same throughout each version.

21. Section 10.2 of Defendant’s Contract of Carriage covers refunds for flights that do 

not operate.

22. That section provides that

[i]n the event that Spirit is unable to provide a previously confirmed seat and is 

unable to reroute the guest via Spirit, Spirit will refund as indicated below ... If no 

portion of the reservation has been used, the refund will be equal to the fare paid 

by the guest ... If a portion of the reservation has been used, the refund will be 

equal to the amount of the unused portion ... Guests involved in a Spirit Airlines 

cancellation or delay in excess of two (2) hours will have three (3) options available 

to them: 1) re-accommodation, 2) a credit for future travel, or 3) a refund ... 

Refunds will only be issued to the form of payment used to complete the original 

purchase.

23. The Contract of Carriage further dictates that “[a]ll refunds will be subject to 

government laws, rules, regulations, or orders of the country in which the ticket was originally 

purchased and the country in which the refund is being made.”

24. Defendant’s contract of carriage does not promise, permit, or require the issuance 

of any vouchers or coupons lieu of monetary refunds in the event of cancellation unless that option 

is selected by the passenger. 

25. Under U.S. law, 49 U.S.C. § 41712 prohibits unfair or deceptive practices in the air 

carrier industry and “since at least the time of an Industry Letter of July 15, 1996 ... the [DOT’s] 

Aviation Enforcement Office has advised carriers that refusing to refund a non-refundable fare 

when a flight is cancelled and the passenger wishes to cancel is a violation” of that section. 

Enhancing Airline Passenger Protections, 76 Fed. Reg. 23110-01, 23129.

Case 0:20-cv-60933-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2020 Page 4 of 13
5

26. As part of each ticket purchase, Defendant made a promise and warranty to 

customers that in the event of a flight cancellation or substantially interrupted flight, customers are 

entitled to a full monetary refund. 

Defendant’s Response to the Covid-19 Pandemic

27. On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization declared the Covid-19 virus 

a public health emergency of international concern.

28. As of late-February, Covid-19 confirmed cases in the United States were detected 

and exponentially increasing, including cases that were not caused by recent international travel 

but through community spread.

29. On March 11, 2020, the WHO officially declared Covid-19 a global pandemic.

30. Throughout March, daily cases of Covid-19 were increasing dramatically as well, 

in addition to many of the countries where Defendant offers air travel services. 

31. As part of each ticket purchase, Defendant made a promise and warranty to 

customers that in the event of a flight cancellation or substantially interrupted flight, customers are 

entitled to a full cash refund. 

32. Across the United States, state and local governments began issuing shelter-inplace orders that specifically prohibited non-essential travel, specifically including air travel 

because of the extraordinary risk that air travel presented to the ability to strictly adhere to social 

distancing standards and avoid inter-community and inter-state travel—both of which threatened 

to dramatically increase the spread of the virus. 

33. The U.S. Federal Government issued social distancing guidelines that further 

warned of the substantial risks of human-to-human and community spread of the virus, and air 

travel was clearly discouraged.

Case 0:20-cv-60933-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2020 Page 5 of 13
6

34. It was entirely known and foreseeable to Defendant that many of its previously 

scheduled flights need to be cancelled in order to protect the public from a catastrophic infection 

spread and loss of life and respond to the dramatically decreased demand for air travel.

35. Yet, Defendant quietly ceased honoring contractual agreements with customers, 

including Plaintiffs and the putative class, by discontinuing full monetary refunds for cancelled 

and substantially rescheduled flights and instead providing expiring credits.

36. The practice of offering expiring credits is particularly wrongful and inadequate 

during the Covid-19 epidemic because it remains entirely unclear when normal air travel will once 

again be safe. 

37. The future flight credits provide Defendant additional opportunities to charge 

service, processing, baggage, and other fees that will ensure Defendant additional future profits—

while retaining Plaintiffs’ cash in the interim—substantially diminishing any value for Plaintiffs 

and the putative class. 

38. Recognizing the abuse, and potential for abuse, by Defendant and other airline 

companies, the United States Department of Transportation (“DOT”) was forced to step in to 

remind Defendant that they remain under an obligation to provide passengers with their rights to 

a refund for a cancelled flight resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic. 

39. On April 3, 2020, the DOT issued a notice to remind carriers “that passengers 

should be refunded promptly when their scheduled flights are cancelled or significantly delayed.” 

It notes that “[a]lthough the COVID-19 public health emergency has had an unprecedented impact 

Case 0:20-cv-60933-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2020 Page 6 of 13
7

on air travel, the airlines’ obligation to refund passengers for cancelled or significantly delayed 

flights remains unchanged.” 1

40. The notice continues that: 

[t]he Department is receiving an increasing number of complaints and inquiries 

from ticketed passengers, including many with non-refundable tickets, who 

describe having been denied refunds for flights that were cancelled or significantly 

delayed. In many of these cases, the passengers stated that the carrier informed 

them that they would receive vouchers or credits for future travel. But many 

airlines are dramatically reducing their travel schedules in the wake of the COVID19 public health emergency. As a result, passengers are left with cancelled or 

significantly delayed flights and vouchers and credits for future travel that are not 

readily usable.

Carriers have a longstanding obligation to provide a prompt refund to a ticketed 

passenger when the carrier cancels the passenger’s flight or makes a significant 

change in the flight schedule and the passenger chooses not to accept the 

alternative offered by the carrier.1 The longstanding obligation of carriers to 

provide refunds for flights that carriers cancel or significantly delay does not cease 

when the flight disruptions are outside of the carrier’s control (e.g., a result of 

government restrictions).2 The focus is not on whether the flight disruptions are 

within or outside the carrier’s control, but rather on the fact that the cancellation 

is through no fault of the passenger. Accordingly, the Department continues to 

view any contract of carriage provision or airline policy that purports to deny 

refunds to passengers when the carrier cancels a flight, makes a significant 

schedule change, or significantly delays a flight to be a violation of the carriers’ 

obligation that could subject the carrier to an enforcement action.

...

Specifically, the Aviation Enforcement Office will refrain from pursuing an 

enforcement action against a carrier that provided passengers vouchers for future 

travel in lieu of refunds for cancelled or significantly delayed flights during the 

COVID-19 public health emergency so long as: (1) the carrier contacts, in a timely 

manner, the passengers provided vouchers for flights that the carrier cancelled or 

significantly delayed to notify those passengers that they have the option of a 

refund; (2) the carrier updates its refund policies and contract of carriage 

provisions to make clear that it provides refunds to passengers if the carrier cancels 

a flight or makes a significant schedule change; and (3) the carrier reviews with 

its personnel, including reservationists, ticket counter agents, refund personnel, 

and other customer service professionals, the circumstances under which refunds 

should be made.

1 https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2020-

04/Enforcement%20Notice%20Final%20April%203%202020_0.pdf (last accessed April 15, 

2020).

Case 0:20-cv-60933-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2020 Page 7 of 13
8

41. In addition to violation of its own contract of carriage, Defendant has failed to 

conform to the April 3, 2020 DOT Notice and 49 U.S.C. § 41712 and provide full refunds to its 

passengers. 

42. Defendant has deprived Plaintiffs and the Class of the refunds to which they are 

entitled by 1) failing to provide refunds to their credit or debit cards; 2) issuing coupons or 

vouchers in place of refunds; 3) rendering it functionally impossible to specifically request refunds 

over vouchers/coupons by inaccessibility of customer service, with wait times of more than two 

hours frequently reported; and/or 4) obscuring passengers’ right to a monetary refund.

Plaintiffs’ Use of Defendant’s Services

43. Plaintiff Diaz purchased a round trip ticket from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to Las 

Vegas Nevada, scheduled to depart on May 14, 2020 (flight 395) and return on May 18, 2020 

(flight 396).

44. Plaintiff paid $365.58 for her ticket, including baggage fees.

45. On or about March 15, 2020, the State of Nevada issued an emergency directive 

which resulted in the closure of all hotels and casinos.

46. Defendant cancelled Plaintiff’s flights but failed to even notify her of the 

cancellation. The itinerary simply disappeared from Plaintiff’s online bookings.

47. Plaintiff seeks a refund, but Defendant is offering Plaintiff only a credit for travel 

within one year of booking.

48. Plaintiff does not want a worthless expiring credit. She wants the refund to which 

she is legally entitled.

Case 0:20-cv-60933-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2020 Page 8 of 13
9

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

49. Plaintiff brings this class action under Rule 23 and seek certification of the claims 

and issues in this action pursuant to the applicable provisions of Rule 23. The proposed class is 

defined as:

All persons residing in the United States or its territories who purchased tickets for 

travel on a Spirit Airlines flight scheduled to operate from March 1, 2020

through the date of a class certification order, whose flight(s) were canceled by 

Frontier Airlines, and who were not provided a refund. Excluded from the Class are 

(a) any person who has specifically requested a coupon or voucher in lieu of a 

refund; (b) any person who requested and received alternative air transportation in 

lieu of a refund; (c) all persons who are employees, directors, officers, and agents of 

either Defendant; (d) governmental entities; and (e) the Court, the Court’s immediate 

family, and Court staff.

50. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or modify the Class definitions with greater 

specificity or division into subclasses after having had an opportunity to conduct discovery.

51. Numerosity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). Defendant carries approximately 34 million 

passengers per year on many thousands of flights. A significant percentage of those flights during 

the class period have been cancelled. At a minimum, there are tens of thousands of Class Members 

but very likely many more. The exact size of the proposed class and the identity of all class 

members can be readily ascertained from Defendant’s records. 

52. Commonality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) and (b)(3). There are questions of law and 

fact common to the class, which questions predominate over any questions affecting only 

individual class members. Common issues include:

A. Whether Defendant formed contracts with its passengers in selling them tickets for 

air travel;

B. Whether Defendant’s conduct breaches the terms of its contracts with its 

passengers, including its Contract of Carriage;

C. Whether Defendant is required to provide a refund, rather than an expiring voucher, 

to passengers for cancelled flights.

D. The nature of the relief, including equitable relief, to which Plaintiffs and the class 

are entitled. 

Case 0:20-cv-60933-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2020 Page 9 of 13
10

53. Typicality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of 

the Class they seek to represent. Plaintiff and all Class members were exposed to substantially 

similar contracts, breaches, and sustained injuries arising out of and caused by Defendant’s 

unlawful conduct.

54. Adequacy of Representation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). Plaintiff will fairly and 

adequately represent and protect the interests of the members of the Class. Further, Plaintiff’s

counsel is competent and experienced in litigating class actions. 

55. Superiority. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). A class action is superior to any other 

available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. The claims of Plaintiff 

and individual class members are small compared to the burden and expense that would be required 

to separately litigate their claims against Defendant, and it would be impracticable for class 

members to seek redress individually. Litigating claims individually would also be wasteful to the 

resources of the parties and the judicial system and create the possibility of inconsistent or 

contradictory judgments. Class treatment provides manageable judicial treatment which will bring 

an orderly and efficient conclusion to all claims arising from Defendant’s misconduct. Class 

certification is therefore appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3).

56. Class certification is also appropriate under Rule 23(b)(1), as the prosecution of 

separate actions by individual members of the class would create the risk of adjudications with 

respect to individual class members that would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests 

of other members not parties to the adjudication and substantially impair their ability to protect 

those interests.

Case 0:20-cv-60933-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2020 Page 10 of 13
11

57. Class certification is also appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2), as Defendant has acted 

and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making final injunctive 

relief or corresponding declaratory relief appropriate for the class.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Breach of Contract 

58. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding factual allegations as if fully set forth herein.

59. A contract was formed between Plaintiff and Class members on the one hand and 

Defendant on the other with respect to the purchase of airfare.

60. The contract was offered by Defendant and formed at the time Plaintiff and the 

Class accepted it by purchasing their tickets.

61. The contract that governs the transactions at issue in this case requires refunds for 

cancelled flights where the passenger does not elect to take substitute transportation.

62. Plaintiff and the Class performed their obligations under the contract.

63. Defendant breached the contract when they sought to provide coupons or vouchers 

in lieu of refunds for passengers on canceled flights.

64. Defendant’s breaches were willful and not the result of mistake or inadvertence.

65. As a result of Defendant’s breach Plaintiff and other Class members have been 

damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the class of similarly situated individuals, 

requests the Court to:

(a) Certify the case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, designate Plaintiff as representative of the class and designate counsel of record 

Case 0:20-cv-60933-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2020 Page 11 of 13
12

as class counsel;

(b) Order Defendant to provide actual damages and equitable monetary relief 

(including restitution) to Plaintiff and class members and/or order Defendant to disgorge 

profits they realized as a result of their unlawful conduct;

(c) Order Defendant to pay punitive damages, as allowable by law, to Plaintiff and 

class members;

(d) Declare Defendant’s conduct unlawful and enter an order enjoining Defendant from 

continuing to engage in the conduct alleged herein;

(e) For both pre and post-judgment interest at the maximum allowable rate on any 

amounts awarded;

(f) For costs of the proceedings herein;

(g) For reasonable attorneys’ fees as allowed by law; and

(h) Award such other relief as the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class of all others similarly situated, hereby 

demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure.

Dated: May 8, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Avi R. Kaufman

Avi R. Kaufman (Fla. Bar No. 84382)

KAUFMAN PA

400 NW 26th Street

Miami, FL 33127

(305) 469-5881

kaufman@kaufmanpa.com

Case 0:20-cv-60933-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2020 Page 12 of 13
13

AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC

Tina Wolfson (PHV Forthcoming)

Robert Ahdoot (PHV Forthcoming)

10728 Lindbrook Drive

Los Angeles, CA 90024

(310) 474-9111

(310) 474-8585 (Fax)

twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com

rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com

LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C.

David R. Dubin (PHV Forthcoming)

Nicholas A. Coulson (PHV Forthcoming)

975 E. Jefferson Ave.

Detroit, Michigan 48207

Tel: 313-392-0015

Fax: 313-392-0025

ddubin@ldclassaction.com

ncoulson@ldclassaction.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative 

Class

Case 0:20-cv-60933-RKA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2020 Page 13 of 13