Rao v. Era Alaska Airlines
United States District Court for the District of Maryland
22 F. Supp. 3d 529 (2014)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Maryland residents Vijai Rao and Sumathi Mathur (plaintiffs) used Expedia.com, a travel website, to purchase tickets for a flight from Kodiak, Alaska, to Anchorage, Alaska, on Era Alaska Airlines (Era) (defendant). After the flight, Rao and Mathur noticed that a case containing valuable jewelry and cash was missing. Rao and Mathur sued Era and Era’s president, Bob Hadjukovich (defendant), in federal district court in Maryland, asserting various tort claims. Era and Hadjukovich moved to dismiss, arguing that the Maryland-based court lacked personal jurisdiction over Hadjukovich, an Alaska resident, and Era, an Alaska airline offering flights only within Alaska and advertising only within Alaska. The district court denied the motion but allowed limited discovery to determine whether Hadjukovich and Era had sufficient contacts with Maryland to support personal jurisdiction. Thereafter, Rao and Mathur sought to amend their complaint to include facts showing that Era used Sabre, a company that facilitated online bookings by individuals through sites like Expedia.com, and that Sabre had a Maryland office. Hadjukovich and Era opposed that motion and renewed their motion to dismiss.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Grimm, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
