United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division, Dayton
ANDREW E. DILLDINE, Plaintiff,
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., et al., Defendants.
M. Rose District Judge.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
L. Ovington United States Magistrate Judge.
Andrew I. Dilldine flew from Dayton, Ohio to North Carolina
on a regional jet operated by Defendant PSA Airlines, Inc.
Defendant PSA is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant
American Airlines, Inc. Dilldine's flight did not go
well. Defendants allegedly damaged his personal
property-including his medications-and allegedly caused him
serious and permanent personal injury that required
Complaint advances two claims: negligence and breach of a
contract of carriage. Notably, his negligence claim rests on
his assertion that Defendants “owed specific duties to
[him] from the Air Carrier Access Act…, ” and
related regulations. (Doc. #2, PageID #31,
contend-and Dilldine disagrees-that dismissal of
Dilldine's claims is warranted under Fed R. Civ. P.
Rule 12(b)(6) 
of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate when it
“lacks ‘sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its
face.” Brent v. Wayne Cnty. Dep't of Human
Services, 901 F.3d 656, 675-76 (6th Cir. 2018) (quoting
Marie v. Am. Red Cross, 771 F.3d 344, 361 (6th Cir.
2014) (citation omitted). Facial plausibility is present if
the moving party “pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant
is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678.
where “matters outside the pleadings are presented to
and not excluded by the court, ” a Rule 12(b)(6) motion
must be converted to a motion for summary judgment under Rule
56. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). Yet in limited
situations, the Court may take into account materials outside
the complaint such as public records, exhibits attached to
the complaint or to a defendant's motion to dismiss, and
“items appearing in the record of the case
….” Bassett v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic
Ass'n, 528 F.3d 426, 430 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing
Amini v. Oberlin Coll., 259 F.3d 493, 502 (6th Cir.
2001)). This extra-pleading study is permissible-and
conversion to summary-judgment is unnecessary-when public
records, exhibits, or other items are “referred to in
the Complaint and are central to the claims contained
have attached to their Rule 12(b)(6) Motion a document
referred to as “the American Airlines Conditions of
Carriage …” that was in effect on the date (May
4, 2017) Dilldine flew to North Caroline with his ill-fated
medications. (Doc. #12, PageID #102, ¶2). The
Complaint refers to this document, and the parties agree that
it is central to Dilldine's claim for breach of contract
of carriage. (Doc. #12, PageID #86; Doc. #13,
PageID #153). It is therefore proper to consider it
as part of Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) Motion without
converting it into a motion for summary judgment. See
Bassett, 528 F.3d at 430.
Defendants seek dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court
accepts as true the Complaint's factual allegations,
construes the Complaint in Dilldine's favor, and draws
all reasonable inferences in his favor. Bickerstaff v.
Lucarelli, 830 F.3d 388, 396 (6th Cir. 2016). Reading
his Complaint in the above manner and considering its
attached documents reveals the following.
purchased a ticket for an American Airlines flight that
departed on May 4, 2017 from Dayton International Airport and
traveled to Charlotte Douglas International Airport in North
Carolina. He boarded his flight with his “life
sustaining assistive devices, specifically multiple sterile
Total Parenteral Nutrition bags, and multiple vials of liquid
vitamins and other medications , all of which are
medications essential to [his] ability to function and
receive nourishment.” (Doc. #2, PageID #30).
The Complaint does not identify Dilldine's medical
problems. Defendants state that he “is a severely
immunocompromised cancer patient who, at the time of his
flight, had only recently been discharged from the hospital
after a serious bout of pancreatitis.” (Doc. #15,
stored his medication and ice packs in a clean cooler that
complied with the size and weight restrictions for carry-on
items. His medication cooler was also secured in compliance
with the procedures mandated by the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA)-it was marked as “medical
supplies” and had been inspected by TSA and taped shut.
(Doc. #2, PageID #s 30-31).
taking these steps, Dilldine encountered a problem when he
reached the boarding gate: An American Airlines or PSA
employee told him that his cooler would not fit in the
aircraft's overhead compartments “and would have to
be checked.” Id. at 31. Dilldine informed the
employee that he was disabled and that his cooler contained
life-sustaining assistive devices and needed to be kept clean
and cold. Dilldine followed the employee's instructions.
The employee tagged his cooler, and he watched other American
Airlines and PSA employees load the cooler onto the aircraft.
This solved the immediate problem about where to store
Plaintiff's cooler and medication. But another problem
Dilldine's arrival in North Carolina, his cooler was
empty. It had been “manually opened and/or unzipped,
the tape removed, the plastic bags were missing.”
Id. at 31. Most significantly, his “multiple
bags and vials of Medication and ice packs were strewn
throughout the baggage storage area of the aircraft, baggage
cart, and/or on the unloading equipment, such that they were
not maintained in a cold, sterile environment and were
haphazard storage of the cooler and its contents-and the
resulting contamination of Dilldine's medication-caused
him to “sustain[ ] property damage and severe personal
injuries, including a severe infection requiring
hospitalization….” Id. He consequently
“incurred medical expenses, physical pain, and mental