David Simon, et al v. Continental Airlines, Inc., No. 10-3176 (6th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 11a0753n.06 Case No. 10-3176 FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT DAVID SIMON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. _______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Nov 08, 2011 LEONARD GREEN, Clerk ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO BEFORE: BATCHELDER Chief Judge; SUHRHEINRICH and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges. ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Chief Judge. This case arises from a class action complaint filed by Plaintiffs David Simon, Gary Berk, Jean Heflich, and Evelyn Smith against Defendant Continental Airlines, Inc. ( Continental ). Plaintiffs allege that Continental violated the terms of its OnePass frequent flier program; they seek damages, injunctive relief, and certification of a class. The OnePass program works like any other frequent flier program. Members sign up for the program, collect miles by flying on Continental, and can redeem those miles for reward tickets and other merchandise. Plaintiffs allege that Continental charged more than the advertised number of miles to redeem certain reward tickets, charged an additional fee for tickets redeemed within 20 days of the flight date, and charged a cancellation fee when members cancelled a reward ticket and wanted to redeposit the miles for later use. No. 10-3176, Simon, et al. v. Continental Airlines, Inc. Both sides moved for summary judgment. The district court denied Plaintiffs motion, granted Continental s, and denied as moot Plaintiffs motion to certify a class. Plaintiffs appeal. After carefully reviewing the district court s opinion, the briefs, and the record in this case, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Continental. As the district court correctly set out the applicable law and correctly applied that law to the facts contained in the record, issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in its well-reasoned opinion, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
