Filed: Jul. 09, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-9-2007 Frazier v. Amer Airlines Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-3200 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007 Recommended Citation "Frazier v. Amer Airlines Inc" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 800. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/800 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the
Summary: Opinions of the United 2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-9-2007 Frazier v. Amer Airlines Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-3200 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007 Recommended Citation "Frazier v. Amer Airlines Inc" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 800. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/800 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the O..
More
Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
7-9-2007
Frazier v. Amer Airlines Inc
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-3200
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Frazier v. Amer Airlines Inc" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 800.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/800
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Nos. 06-3200 and 3201
PATTI FRAZIER, Individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated; RICKY L. MARTIN, Individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated; DAN
BRIDGEMAN, Individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated,
Appellants in No. 06-3200
v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.; TWA AIRLINES LLC
BARBARA V. LEVY, Individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated,
Appellant in No. 06-3201
v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC; TWA AIRLINES LLC
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
(D.C. Civ. Nos. 03-00734 and 03-00792)
Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, District Judge
Argued June 14, 2007
BEFORE: SMITH and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges, and
POLLAK,* District Judge
(Filed:July 9, 2007)
OPINION OF THE COURT
Stephen H. Gardner (argued)
5646 Milton Street
Meadows Building
Dallas, TX 75206
Attorney for Appellants
Steven J. Fineman
Frederick L. Cottrell, III
Richards, Layton & Finger
One Rodney Square
P.O. Box 551
Wilmington, DE 19899
Salvatore Romanello
Robert S. Berezin (argued)
Gregory S. Coleman
Richard Rothman
Weil, Gotshal & Manges
767 Fifth Avenue
27th Floor
New York, NY 10153
Attorneys for Appellees
*Honorable Louis H. Pollak, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
GREENBERG, Circuit Judge.
2
These matters come on before the court on consolidated appeals from judgments
entered on May 25, 2006, in the district court in accordance with the district court’s
comprehensive memorandum opinion reported as Frazier v. American Airlines, Inc.,
434
F. Supp. 2d 279 (D. Del. 2006). The district court exercised jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332 and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Inasmuch as the appeals
are from summary judgments, we are exercising plenary review on this appeal. See In re
Ikon Office Solutions, Inc.,
277 F.3d 658, 665 (3d Cir. 2002). Like the district court, we
will apply Delaware law, as the parties during oral argument before us did not object to
the use of that state’s law.
After our review of this matter, we are in full accord with the judgments and
opinion of the district court and we will affirm the judgments entered on May 25, 2006,
for the reasons set forth in the district court’s opinion.
3