Sep 9, 2014, 5:54 am
Last edit by: mbwmbw
All files are available for download at: http://mbw.name/Files/FlyerTalk/Delta_Class_Action/
Furthermore, each document has been linked to the download location.
For a full download of the complaint and attachments click here.
Date Filed # Docket Text
08/07/2014 1 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand; against Delta Airlines, Inc. by Darla Opper. ( Filing Fee PAID $400 receipt number 0757-1939172) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Civil Cover Sheet, # 9 Summons)(Shah, James)
08/07/2014 NOTICE Regarding assignment of this matter to Chief Judge William C Griesbach ;Consent/refusal forms for Magistrate Judge Duffin to be filed within 21 days;the consent/refusal form is available on our web site ;pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1 a disclosure statement is to be filed upon the first filing of any paper and should be filed now if not already filed (jcl)
08/07/2014 2 DISCLOSURE Statement by Darla Opper. (Shah, James)
08/08/2014 Summons Issued as to Delta Airlines, Inc. (mec)
08/20/2014 3 Refusal to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge by Darla Opper. (Shah, James)
08/25/2014 4 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Darla Opper. Delta Airlines Inc served on 8/14/2014, answer due 9/4/2014. (Shah, James)
08/29/2014 5 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time by Delta Airlines Inc. (Smith, Renee)
08/29/2014 6 DISCLOSURE Statement by Delta Airlines Inc. (Smith, Renee)
09/02/2014 TEXT ONLY ORDER GRANTING 5 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time filed by Delta Airlines Inc., signed by Chief Judge William C Griesbach on 09/02/2014. The deadline for filing its responsive pleading is extended 14 days, until September 18, 2014. (cc: all counsel)(Griesbach, William)
09/18/2014 7 MOTION to Dismiss by Delta Airlines Inc. (Balassa, Gabor)
09/18/2014 8 BRIEF in Support filed by Delta Airlines Inc re 7 MOTION to Dismiss . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Best Fare Guarantee, # 2 Exhibit B - Best Fare Guarantee Claim Form, # 3 Exhibit C - Tabatabai v. West Coast Life Ins. Co, # 4 Exhibit D - Marine Travelift, Inc. v. Marine Lift Sys., Inc, # 5 Exhibit E - Tilstra v. Bou-Matic, LLC, # 6 Exhibit F - PNC Bank, N.A. v. Van Hoornaar, # 7 Exhibit G - NIIJII Entmt, LLC v. Troha) (Balassa, Gabor)
10/03/2014 9 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time by Darla Opper. (Shah, James)
Furthermore, each document has been linked to the download location.
For a full download of the complaint and attachments click here.
Date Filed # Docket Text
08/07/2014 1 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand; against Delta Airlines, Inc. by Darla Opper. ( Filing Fee PAID $400 receipt number 0757-1939172) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Civil Cover Sheet, # 9 Summons)(Shah, James)
08/07/2014 NOTICE Regarding assignment of this matter to Chief Judge William C Griesbach ;Consent/refusal forms for Magistrate Judge Duffin to be filed within 21 days;the consent/refusal form is available on our web site ;pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1 a disclosure statement is to be filed upon the first filing of any paper and should be filed now if not already filed (jcl)
08/07/2014 2 DISCLOSURE Statement by Darla Opper. (Shah, James)
08/08/2014 Summons Issued as to Delta Airlines, Inc. (mec)
08/20/2014 3 Refusal to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge by Darla Opper. (Shah, James)
08/25/2014 4 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Darla Opper. Delta Airlines Inc served on 8/14/2014, answer due 9/4/2014. (Shah, James)
08/29/2014 5 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time by Delta Airlines Inc. (Smith, Renee)
08/29/2014 6 DISCLOSURE Statement by Delta Airlines Inc. (Smith, Renee)
09/02/2014 TEXT ONLY ORDER GRANTING 5 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time filed by Delta Airlines Inc., signed by Chief Judge William C Griesbach on 09/02/2014. The deadline for filing its responsive pleading is extended 14 days, until September 18, 2014. (cc: all counsel)(Griesbach, William)
09/18/2014 7 MOTION to Dismiss by Delta Airlines Inc. (Balassa, Gabor)
09/18/2014 8 BRIEF in Support filed by Delta Airlines Inc re 7 MOTION to Dismiss . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Best Fare Guarantee, # 2 Exhibit B - Best Fare Guarantee Claim Form, # 3 Exhibit C - Tabatabai v. West Coast Life Ins. Co, # 4 Exhibit D - Marine Travelift, Inc. v. Marine Lift Sys., Inc, # 5 Exhibit E - Tilstra v. Bou-Matic, LLC, # 6 Exhibit F - PNC Bank, N.A. v. Van Hoornaar, # 7 Exhibit G - NIIJII Entmt, LLC v. Troha) (Balassa, Gabor)
10/03/2014 9 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time by Darla Opper. (Shah, James)
Class Action Federal Lawsuit Aginst Delta RE: Best Fares Available
Sep 8, 2014, 6:01 am
#61
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: San Antonio
Programs: DL DM, Former AA EXP now AY Plat, AC 75K, NW Plat, Former CO Gold, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 27,042
Hi All
An update:
Date Filed # Docket Text
08/07/2014 1 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand; against Delta Airlines, Inc. by Darla Opper. ( Filing Fee PAID $400 receipt number 0757-1939172) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Civil Cover Sheet, # 9 Summons)(Shah, James)
08/07/2014 NOTICE Regarding assignment of this matter to Chief Judge William C Griesbach ;Consent/refusal forms for Magistrate Judge Duffin to be filed within 21 days;the consent/refusal form is available on our web site ;pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1 a disclosure statement is to be filed upon the first filing of any paper and should be filed now if not already filed (jcl)
08/07/2014 2 DISCLOSURE Statement by Darla Opper. (Shah, James)
08/08/2014 Summons Issued as to Delta Airlines, Inc. (mec)
08/20/2014 3 Refusal to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge by Darla Opper. (Shah, James)
08/25/2014 4 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Darla Opper. Delta Airlines Inc served on 8/14/2014, answer due 9/4/2014. (Shah, James)
08/29/2014 5 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time by Delta Airlines Inc. (Smith, Renee)
08/29/2014 6 DISCLOSURE Statement by Delta Airlines Inc. (Smith, Renee)
09/02/2014 TEXT ONLY ORDER GRANTING 5 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time filed by Delta Airlines Inc., signed by Chief Judge William C Griesbach on 09/02/2014. The deadline for filing its responsive pleading is extended 14 days, until September 18, 2014. (cc: all counsel)(Griesbach, William)
An update:
Date Filed # Docket Text
08/07/2014 1 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand; against Delta Airlines, Inc. by Darla Opper. ( Filing Fee PAID $400 receipt number 0757-1939172) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Civil Cover Sheet, # 9 Summons)(Shah, James)
08/07/2014 NOTICE Regarding assignment of this matter to Chief Judge William C Griesbach ;Consent/refusal forms for Magistrate Judge Duffin to be filed within 21 days;the consent/refusal form is available on our web site ;pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1 a disclosure statement is to be filed upon the first filing of any paper and should be filed now if not already filed (jcl)
08/07/2014 2 DISCLOSURE Statement by Darla Opper. (Shah, James)
08/08/2014 Summons Issued as to Delta Airlines, Inc. (mec)
08/20/2014 3 Refusal to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge by Darla Opper. (Shah, James)
08/25/2014 4 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Darla Opper. Delta Airlines Inc served on 8/14/2014, answer due 9/4/2014. (Shah, James)
08/29/2014 5 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time by Delta Airlines Inc. (Smith, Renee)
08/29/2014 6 DISCLOSURE Statement by Delta Airlines Inc. (Smith, Renee)
09/02/2014 TEXT ONLY ORDER GRANTING 5 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time filed by Delta Airlines Inc., signed by Chief Judge William C Griesbach on 09/02/2014. The deadline for filing its responsive pleading is extended 14 days, until September 18, 2014. (cc: all counsel)(Griesbach, William)
Sep 8, 2014, 6:03 am
#62
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Programs: DL DM, UA 1K, AA EXP, US G, SPG P, HH D, MR G, NEXUS/GE, DL AMEX Reserve
Posts: 2,035
I just want to keep you all informed with this. I think they are having an issue understanding married segment logic... Just because Flight AAA-BBB has availability in X class and BBB-CCC has availability in X class, a flight from AAA-BBB-CCC may not have that same availability as those inventory levels change depending on the routing.
Sep 8, 2014, 11:00 am
#63
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: STL
Programs: WN, DL, AA; Hyatt or Wyndham
Posts: 1,079
Correct.
I just want to keep you all informed with this. I think they are having an issue understanding married segment logic... Just because Flight AAA-BBB has availability in X class and BBB-CCC has availability in X class, a flight from AAA-BBB-CCC may not have that same availability as those inventory levels change depending on the routing.
I just want to keep you all informed with this. I think they are having an issue understanding married segment logic... Just because Flight AAA-BBB has availability in X class and BBB-CCC has availability in X class, a flight from AAA-BBB-CCC may not have that same availability as those inventory levels change depending on the routing.
As I understand it, the theory of the lawsuit is that if AAA-BBB is available in X, and BBB-CCC is available in X, then under the BFG, AAA-CCC should be available in X with a connection in BBB. The fact that nothing is available in X on AAA-CCC? Well, Delta is the one who has the power to change that.
Sep 8, 2014, 11:08 am
#64
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,404
It's also conceivable but unlikely that the broken fare AAA-BBB in X followed by BBB-CCC in X would cost less than what delta.dumb offered. I see lots of broken fares on connecting itineraries but I can't recall that I've ever seen a broken fare with the same fare classes. maybe this should systematically be offered.
Sep 8, 2014, 11:18 am
#65
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 23,051
Well I think that's the point of the lawsuit....Delta is the entity that has the power to make "those inventory levels change." No one else is controlling Delta's inventory buckets.
As I understand it, the theory of the lawsuit is that if AAA-BBB is available in X, and BBB-CCC is available in X, then under the BFG, AAA-CCC should be available in X with a connection in BBB. The fact that nothing is available in X on AAA-CCC? Well, Delta is the one who has the power to change that.
As I understand it, the theory of the lawsuit is that if AAA-BBB is available in X, and BBB-CCC is available in X, then under the BFG, AAA-CCC should be available in X with a connection in BBB. The fact that nothing is available in X on AAA-CCC? Well, Delta is the one who has the power to change that.
The suit uses the terms "published fare" and "valid published fare" frequently which many here erroneously assumed means available for purchase. But "published" does not equate with "available". If there's no bucket available for the cheapest published, you can't purchase it. Not from DL, not from anyone else.
Sep 8, 2014, 11:22 am
#66
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 23,051
It's also conceivable but unlikely that the broken fare AAA-BBB in X followed by BBB-CCC in X would cost less than what delta.dumb offered. I see lots of broken fares on connecting itineraries but I can't recall that I've ever seen a broken fare with the same fare classes. maybe this should systematically be offered.
Last edited by xliioper; Sep 8, 2014 at 11:28 am
Sep 8, 2014, 11:42 am
#67
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: STL
Programs: WN, DL, AA; Hyatt or Wyndham
Posts: 1,079
I would think the plaintiff's attorney would contend that it does....a judge will eventually decide, I guess. As others have pointed out on this thread, some judges like "plain language analysis" and that will likely defeat all the fare buckets and connecting rules and married segment logic etc etc. The more byzantine a system is, the harder it is to defend.
However, other judges like to dive into the minutiae of what a contract says, in which case Delta is safer.
However, other judges like to dive into the minutiae of what a contract says, in which case Delta is safer.
Sep 8, 2014, 11:59 am
#68
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 23,051
I would think the plaintiff's attorney would contend that it does....a judge will eventually decide, I guess. As others have pointed out on this thread, some judges like "plain language analysis" and that will likely defeat all the fare buckets and connecting rules and married segment logic etc etc. The more byzantine a system is, the harder it is to defend.
However, other judges like to dive into the minutiae of what a contract says, in which case Delta is safer.
However, other judges like to dive into the minutiae of what a contract says, in which case Delta is safer.
Why not argue that fare rules violate BFG too? Why can I buy a one-way T fare for ATL-SRQ, but not ATW-ATL even if there is T bucket availability for the ATW-ATL flight I am looking at.
They might have had a better shot at using broken fares instead of married segment fares. But broken fares almost always have more inconvenient routings (like DTW-ORD-MSP instead of DTW-MSP) and people would have likely realized quickly that it's comparing apples and oranges.
Last edited by xliioper; Sep 8, 2014 at 12:14 pm
Sep 8, 2014, 1:56 pm
#69
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: NYC
Programs: AADULtArer
Posts: 5,682
I would think the plaintiff's attorney would contend that it does....a judge will eventually decide, I guess. As others have pointed out on this thread, some judges like "plain language analysis" and that will likely defeat all the fare buckets and connecting rules and married segment logic etc etc. The more byzantine a system is, the harder it is to defend.
However, other judges like to dive into the minutiae of what a contract says, in which case Delta is safer.
However, other judges like to dive into the minutiae of what a contract says, in which case Delta is safer.
Sep 8, 2014, 2:31 pm
#70
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: STL
Programs: WN, DL, AA; Hyatt or Wyndham
Posts: 1,079
If the broad theory of the lawsuit is that the Best Fare Guarantee does not align with the way Delta does fares/buckets, etc., I certainly wouldn't expect that Delta would resolve the conflict by changing the way it does airline ticket pricing....much easier and cleaner to resolve it from the other side of the equation. I.e., the BFG goes away.
Sep 8, 2014, 7:32 pm
#71
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: DL PM, MM, NR; HH Diamond, Bonvoy LT Gold, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Diamond, others
Posts: 12,159
Even if you take BFG at it's simplest terms without the conditions (finding a cheaper price from another party for same flights), there's nothing specifically about married segment logic that prevents that. Nor does the lawsuit actually demonstrate that. Yes, you can get a cheaper flight to SRQ on December 12th than December 19th. How is that a BFG issue?
But when DL's cheapest fare MSP-DTW-MSP (going to their website and just looking for the cheapest fare, allowing connections, whatever) is higher than Orbitz finds (MSP-ORD-DTW-ORD-MSP), and even booking the flights Orbitz found on Delta's website costs more than Orbitz, then clearly the BFG failed.
Sep 8, 2014, 7:37 pm
#72
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 23,051
If the broad theory of the lawsuit is that the Best Fare Guarantee does not align with the way Delta does fares/buckets, etc., I certainly wouldn't expect that Delta would resolve the conflict by changing the way it does airline ticket pricing....much easier and cleaner to resolve it from the other side of the equation. I.e., the BFG goes away.
Sep 8, 2014, 8:15 pm
#73
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: STL
Programs: WN, DL, AA; Hyatt or Wyndham
Posts: 1,079
All the legacy airlines use similar forms of fare logic to set prices based on markets and demand. This is not unique to DL. Ultimately, they have nothing to do with best fare guarantees. Again, the suit is written to make you think that it found lower fares for the same dates and flights, which is the heart of BFG, when it actually never did show that or even claimed that they could. Without showing that, all it is showing is that DL varies prices with demand. Trying to say that BFG does not "align" with demand based pricing is about as silly as saying that it does not align with the fact that the sky is blue. But I suppose if the plaintiff could get enough stupid jurors they could convince them of anything.
Sep 8, 2014, 8:32 pm
#74
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,688
The first claim for relief talks is about breach of contract, a claim that is not preempted. The Supreme Court has said that claims for enforcing the express terms of a contract are not pre-empted by the ADA.
The second claim is about the breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which is (almost certainly) preempted as it seeks to enlarge the terms of the bargain.
The third claim is about breach of an express warrantee, which is probably not preempted. The warrantee applies to all users of Delta.com, whether or not they book a ticket, and does not necessarily deal with a "price, route, or service." Furthermore, you can interpret the warrantee to be contractual and thus enforceable even if it does deal with a "price, route, or service."
The fourth claim is about fraud, and is also probably not not preempted.
----------------------------------
Separately, an actual best fare guarantee -- in the sense that a layperson might interpret it -- is actually impossible. Given any city pair, it is not possible to compute with certainty the lowest fare to get from A to B, assuming you permit connections. To do so, you would have to price every possible fare across every possible connection point, which would take more time than there has ever been in the universe. In computer science terms, this problem is NP-complete. Anyone claiming a "true" best fare guarantee is claiming either:
1. They have an algorithm for solving non-polynomial problems in polynomial time (and thus are the winner of $1 million), or
2. They have a heretofore unknown computer, such as a quantum computer, that can actually calculate all possible solutions to this problem in a reasonable time.
Neither of these are likely.
Sep 8, 2014, 8:50 pm
#75
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ATL
Programs: Delta PlM, 1M
Posts: 6,363
In all honesty, the abstract is starting to make my brain hurt, and to have an informed opinion on whether they have a case, I would have to have specific examples (on x date I found y fares that are a violation of the BFG in z manner). That's what evidence in a trial is for.
DL will move to have the claims dismissed based on (basically):
A) The facts as claimed do not imply DL violated the contractual BFG.terms.
B) The other State laws and common laws violations claimed are preempted.
The trial Judge will almost certainly agree. A few ping pings between the parties. And likely an appeal.
But I think even getting to discovery is 1 in a 100.