United Airlines Defeats Online Booker Expedia's Injunction Motion in Contract Row
U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel said that despite the online travel booking company's ability to show a probability of success, it failed to show it faced irreparable harm absent the injunction.
April 05, 2019 at 04:45 PM
4 minute read
The online travel service Expedia on Friday was denied a motion to keep United Airlines from cutting off booking and flight information after September 2019 in a contract battle that could sever the relationship between the companies.
U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel of the Southern District of New York denied the injunction request, which would have prevented the airline from removing its information after the Sept. 30 contract expiration date.
The injunction would have eased the threat Expedia claims it faces should United be allowed to follow through with its plans to end the contract and eliminate now any possibility of having flights past that point available on Expedia's site.
In denying the injunction request, Castel found that most of Expedia's reasons were expressions of the reality they would ultimately face should the contract simply expire, which failed to give rise to the grave need for the court stepping in.
“The parties contracted for a fixed term and did not include provisions discussing customer service of tickets purchased through Expedia after the expiration of the Agreement,” Castel wrote. “Such 'self-inflicted' harms are not considered irreparable.”
According to court filings, the two companies have been under the current contract since 2011, which was amended twice and set to expire Sept. 30. United allows customers to book flights months in advance of departure, which Expedia was granted access as part of the contract.
Expedia claims United breached this contract after the airline sought to renegotiate in October 2018, threatening to curtail Expedia's ability to sell United flights in 2019 if it didn't agree. Negotiations broke down, and United stood firm in February with its plan to cut off access to future flight information beyond the contract deadline.
Despite the court finding that Expedia has demonstrated a probability of success on the merits, based on United's obligations under the contract, Castel nonetheless found the online company had not show the potential for irreparable harm.
The judge noted that, absent an injunction, United would “immediately … cease” providing Expedia with flight schedule information after Sept. 30. The company was sure to suffer monetary loss, but that could potentially be rectified in the future through
As to reputational harm, Expedia is likely to face whatever harm there will be as a result of the agreed-upon contract ending. No evidence showed the company would suffer a material different outcome if the injunction wasn't provided, the court found.
“To the extent Expedia alleges that customer confusion and delay in customer service resulting in loss of goodwill are the irreparable reputational injuries it faces, such injuries are not cured by injunctive relief,” Castel wrote.
Expedia is represented in the litigation by a team led by Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman partner Christopher Colorado. He declined to comment, deferring to spokespeople at the company.
In a statement sent by a spokesman, the company expressed disappointment at the decision but said it was pleased the court appeared to recognize that United's threatened actions would breach the contract.
Kirkland & Ellis partner Atif Khawaja led United's legal efforts. He, too, deferred comment to a spokeswoman, who provided a statement from the company that welcomed Castel's ruling.
The decision “will minimize the risk of disrupting our customers' travel plans and ensure we can effectively serve customers who need to make changes to their itineraries purchased through Expedia,” the company said in its statement.
Related:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250