WACO – Southwest Airlines is asking a federal court to dismiss, or at the very least transfer, a recent lawsuit claiming Boeing’s 737 Max Jet was unsafe to fly – litigation that is similar to a complaint filed two years ago.
Through Hecht Partners, the class action complaint against Southwest was filed in the Western District of Texas back in August and seeks more than $5 million in damages.
Court records show Southwest filed a motion to dismiss on Oct. 27, asserting the case has no “connection whatsoever” to the Western District and “is all but a mirror image” of a certified class action filed in the Eastern District of Texas.
The case in the Eastern District, Damonie Earl et al v. Boeing, was filed under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and centers on ticket buyers claiming Southwest Airlines colluded with Boeing to mislead the public about the aerospace giant’s defective 737.
For the past two years, The Record has reported on the legal happenings in the case filed in the Eastern District, some of which have centered on the fracturing of Pierce Bainbridge, one of the law firm’s representing class members.
Last October, David Hecht, a former Pierce Bainbridge attorney who left to form Hecht Partners, withdrew from the case.
Less than a year later, Hecht Partners filed the “mirror” complaint against Southwest in the Western District – a lawsuit that Southwest argues is “seemingly yet another round in the fight among lawyers for control of the same class of airline ticket purchasers.”
Southwest contends because of the similarities in the cases and the “inherent inefficiency of litigating the same case in multiple jurisdictions,” the suit in the Western District should be stayed or “dismissed outright” under the First-to-File Rule, pending a final resolution of the Eastern District suit.
“And if that hurdle is cleared, the case should be dismissed for improper venue or transferred to the Northern District of Texas, where Southwest is headquartered, because none of the parties reside in this judicial district and no events giving rise to the claims occurred in this judicial district,” the motion states.
However, the First-to-File Rule and improper venue are not the only issues Southwest is raising.
“The … Plaintiffs’ … complaint speaks of harms—hypothetical injuries and damages—that admittedly never happened to any Plaintiff or any Southwest passenger,” the motion states. “None of the Plaintiffs flew on a MAX aircraft, however. And for the absent putative class members who did fly on a MAX aircraft, none flew on flights impacted in any way by the alleged defects.
“That’s right: Every Plaintiff and putative class member safely flew from Point A to Point B without any physical or emotional injury.”
Southwest is represented in part by Dallas attorney Michael Swartzendruber of Norton Rose Fulbright.
Case No. 6:21-cv-00887