Case Name: David SIMON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-08
Citations: 439 F. App'x 542
Docket Number: No. 10-3176
Parties: David SIMON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 439
Pages: 542–543

Head Matter:
David SIMON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 10-3176.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Nov. 8, 2011.
BEFORE: BATCHELDER Chief Judge; SUHRHEINRICH and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Chief Judge.
This case arises from a class action complaint filed by Plaintiffs David Simon, Gary Berk, Jean Heflich, and Evelyn Smith against Defendant Continental Airlines, Inc. ("Continental"). Plaintiffs allege that Continental violated the terms of its One-Pass frequent flier program; they seek damages, injunctive relief, and certification of a class.
The OnePass program works like any other frequent flier program. Members sign up for the program, collect miles by flying on Continental, and can redeem those miles for reward tickets and other merchandise. Plaintiffs allege that Continental charged more than the advertised number of miles to redeem certain reward tickets, charged an additional fee for tickets redeemed within 20 days of the flight date, and charged a cancellation fee when members cancelled a reward ticket and wanted to redeposit the miles for later use.
Both sides moved for summary judgment. The district court denied Plaintiffs' motion, granted Continental's, and denied as moot Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class. Plaintiffs appeal.
After carefully reviewing the district court's opinion, the briefs, and the record in this case, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Continental. As the district court correctly set out the applicable law and correctly applied that law to the facts contained in the record, issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no useful purpose.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in its well-reasoned opinion, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.