Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Nancy Salzman v. Continental Airlines

September 29, 2011

NANCY SALZMAN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC., DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary L. Sharpe District Court Judge

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. Introduction

Plaintiff pro se Nancy Salzman commenced this against defendant Continental Airlines ("Continental") pursuant to New York law for breach of contract, negligence, fraud, conversion, and "deprivation of rights." (See Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) Pending is Continental's motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 5.) For the reasons that follow, Continental's motion is granted.

II. Background

A. FACTUAL HISTORY*fn1

On November 23, 2003, plaintiff Nancy Salzman, a New York resident, boarded a flight, operated by defendant Continental Airlines, Inc., from Newark, NJ to Albany, NY. (See Compl. ¶¶ 1-4, 22, Dkt. No. 1.) As she attempted to board the flight, an airline representative informed Salzman that she could not bring her laptop computer onboard. (Id. ¶ 33.) The laptop, which contained "confidential and proprietary material on it," was "confiscated" by the representative. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 29.) Though she was not given any type of receipt for the laptop, Salzman was told the laptop would be transported on the flight and returned to her when she deplaned in Albany. (Id. ¶¶ 7-9.) When she arrived in Albany, Salzman attempted to reclaim her laptop but was unsuccessful. (Id. ¶ 10.)

In October 2006, Salzman sent Continental a letter explaining the situation and included an invoice for the time she spent attempting to remedy the harm.*fn2 (Id. ¶ 11.) Continental acknowledged receipt of the letter but never sent a response. (Id. ¶ 13.) Salzman sent two additional letters, one on December 22, 2006 and the other on March 15, 2007, each of which stated the facts and gave Continental "an opportunity to rebut" them. (Id. ¶¶ 14-16.) Continental finally responded in April 2007. (Id. ¶ 17.) Although it did not rebut the facts Salzman alleged, her demand for damages was denied.*fn3 (Id.)

B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Salzman commenced this action in New York State Supreme Court, Saratoga County, on August 19, 2010. (See Dkt. No. 1.) Thereafter, Continental timely removed this action to this court and filed an Answer. (See Dkt. Nos. 1, 4.) On January 24, 2011, Continental filed a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). (See Dkt. No. 5.)

III. Standard of Review

The standard of review under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 is well established and will not be repeated here.*fn4 For a full discussion of the standard, the court refers the parties to its decision in Ellis v. Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, 701 F. Supp. 2d 215, 218 (N.D.N.Y. 2010); see also Hayden v. Paterson, 594 F.3d 150, 160 (2d Cir. 2010) (stating motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) are subject to the same standard as motions to dismiss under 12(b)(6)).

IV. Discussion

Continental avers that Salzman's causes of action are barred by the applicable statute of limitations governing each of the claims.*fn5 (See Dkt. No. 5, Attach. 6 at 5.) Under New York law, the statute of limitations is generally "computed from the time the cause of action accrued to the time the claim is interposed." N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 203(a) (McKinney 1997). Although certain plaintiffs, relationships, and causes of action fall outside this general rule*fn6 , Salzman's claims are subject to it. Accordingly, the court computes the statute of limitations from the appropriate accrual date ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.