DALLAS - Yesterday, the Fifth Court of Appeals reversed a ruling granting Boeing’s plea to the jurisdiction on claims the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association asserted on its on behalf while affirming the dismissal of claims SWAPA brought on the behalf of its members.
SWAPA represents more than 9,000 Southwest Airlines Pilots and enters into collective bargaining agreements with Southwest Airlines.
According to the Fifth Court’s opinion, in 2016 SWAPA entered a CBA in which SWAPA agreed that its members would operate Boeing’s 737 MAX aircraft. In 2018 and 2019, the 737 MAX was involved in catastrophic crashes and as a result, the 737 MAX fleet was grounded worldwide.
SWAPA sued Boeing, seeking damages on behalf of itself and its pilots “who have collectively lost, and are continuing to lose, millions of dollars in compensation as a result of Boeing’s false representations concerning its 737 MAX aircraft, namely that the 737 MAX was safe,” court records state.
Court records show a trial court granted Boeing’s plea to the jurisdiction, dismissing SWAPA’s claims with prejudice. The trial court also denied SWAPA’s motion to modify the judgment and amend its petition.
On appeal, SWAPA argued that it has standing to assert claims on its own behalf and associational standing to assert claims on behalf of its members, and even if it does not, the trial court should have allowed a pleading amendment and should not have dismissed the suit with prejudice, the opinion states.
According to the opinion, SWAPA also argued that the Railway Labor Act does not preempt its state law tort claims against Boeing.
The Fifth Court concluded that SWAPA has standing to assert claims on its own behalf, but at the time the suit was filed, lacked standing to assert claims on behalf of its members.
“Although SWAPA’s subsequently acquired assignments of member interests do not cure the jurisdictional defects in the present case, the assignments might confer standing on SWAPA to file suit in the future,” the opinion states. “Thus, while the trial court properly dismissed the suit without providing SWAPA an opportunity to amend its pleadings, the dismissal should have been without prejudice. We further conclude that the RLA does not preempt SWAPA’s state law claims.
“Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order granting Boeing’s plea to the jurisdiction on the claims SWAPA asserted on its own behalf. We modify the trial court’s order to reflect that the claims SWAPA asserted on behalf of its members are dismissed without prejudice. As modified, the remainder of the trial court’s order is affirmed.”
Case No. 05-20-01067-CV