Eid v. Alaska Airlines

621 F.3d 858 (2010)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Eid v. Alaska Airlines

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
621 F.3d 858 (2010)


A group of Egyptian businessmen and their families (the passengers) (plaintiffs) flew on an Alaska Airlines (defendant) flight destined for Las Vegas, where the passengers had scheduled business meetings. According to a witness, the Alaska Airlines flight attendants mistreated the passengers, including by speaking to them in loud voices and hectoring them for minor infractions. When a group member informed a flight attendant, Robin Duus, that a disturbance form she had given them to fill out was supposed to be filled out by the flight crew, Duus began yelling and pacing the area where the passengers were sitting. According to a witness, none of the passengers were disrespectful, and there were no signs of misconduct on the part of the passengers. After one of the passengers complained about Duus’s conduct, Duus called the cockpit and informed the pilot that she had lost control of the group of passengers. The pilot immediately began to descend and diverted the plane to Reno, where law-enforcement personnel interviewed the flight crew. Despite protestations from the flight crew, law enforcement cleared the passengers to continue to their destination and helped to arrange a booking for the passengers on another airline. Following the flight, Alaska Airlines reported the passengers to the Joint Terrorism Task Force. Because of this report, the FBI detained some of the passengers in Las Vegas, causing them to arrive two hours late for their scheduled meeting. The deal they hoped to arrange with business partners in Las Vegas was never consummated. The passengers sued Alaska Airlines for damages due to the delay. Alaska Airlines filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Alaska Airlines was immune from liability under the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft (the Tokyo Convention). The district court granted the motion for summary judgment. The passengers appealed. Alaska Airlines argued that the proper standard under the Tokyo Convention for adjudicating whether an airline is immune from liability for a pilot’s decision to disembark a passenger is whether the pilot’s action was arbitrary and capricious.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Kozinski, C.J.)

Dissent (Otero, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 733,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 733,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 733,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership