UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

KARIN CHRISTINE BREMER, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT 

ATTENDANTS - CWA, a labor 

organization; UNITED AIRLINES, INC., 

a wholly owned subsidiary of a Delaware 

corporation, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 14-1346 

(D.C. No. 1:11-CV-02764-WJM-MJW) 

(D. Colo.)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before BACHARACH, PORFILIO, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Karin Christine Bremer, proceeding pro se, appeals from the dismissal of her 

complaint against the Association of Flight Attendants (“AFA”) and United Airlines 

(“United”). Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. 

 

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

April 13, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
- 2 - 

 Ms. Bremer was employed by United as a flight attendant from January 2006 

to April 2007. United terminated her employment when it discovered she had 

submitted false information on a pre-employment medical questionnaire. 

Ms. Bremer appealed the discharge decision through the grievance procedures set out 

in the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). The United Air Lines Flight 

Attendant System Board of Adjustment (“System Board”) held hearings on 

Ms. Bremer’s appeal and ultimately affirmed her termination in April 2011. 

 In October 2011, Ms. Bremer filed the underlying complaint, alleging that the 

AFA had breached its duty to fairly represent her in the discharge proceedings, and 

that United had breached the CBA by terminating her without cause. After giving 

Ms. Bremer an opportunity to amend her complaint, the district court dismissed her 

claim against United for lack of jurisdiction. The court determined that her claim 

involved a minor dispute that was preempted by the Railway Labor Act, and that she 

had failed to allege facts showing collusion between United and the AFA so as to fall 

within the exception allowing jurisdiction over hybrid claims. 

 The district court also granted AFA’s motion to strike Ms. Bremer’s complaint 

against it for failing to comply with the pleading requirements in Rules 8 and 10 of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court directed Ms. Bremer to file a second 

amended complaint solely against AFA. Ms. Bremer never filed an amended 

pleading as ordered by the court. AFA then moved to dismiss the action pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for Ms. Bremer’s willful failure to comply with the court’s 
- 3 - 

orders providing her an opportunity to file an amended complaint. The district court 

granted AFA’s motion to dismiss. This appeal followed. 

 In her opening brief, Ms. Bremer does not articulate how the district court 

erred in dismissing her claim against United for lack of jurisdiction. Nor does she 

explain how the district court abused its discretion in dismissing her claim against 

AFA pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). By failing to argue any error related to the 

district court’s stated basis for dismissing her claims, Ms. Bremer has waived any 

such argument. See SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc., 578 F.3d 1201, 1226 (10th Cir. 

2009) (“An issue or argument insufficiently raised in a party’s opening brief is 

deemed waived.”). 

 Instead of addressing the district court’s reasons for dismissing her claims, 

Ms. Bremer argues that she was denied due process during her System Board 

hearings, and that her case should be reopened in front of the System Board. But 

Ms. Bremer never alleged any claims in her complaint or amended complaint seeking 

review of the System Board decision. In reviewing a district court’s decision on a 

motion to dismiss, we “are limited to assessing the legal sufficiency of the allegations 

contained within the four corners of the complaint.” Jojola v. Chavez, 55 F.3d 488, 

494 (10th Cir. 1995). We therefore decline to consider Ms. Bremer’s new arguments 

related to claims that she did not allege in her complaint or amended complaint. 
- 4 - 

 The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

 Entered for the Court 

 Bobby R. Baldock 

 Circuit Judge