Anderson et al v. American Airlines, Inc. et al

- 1 - 25cv3609
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KENDALL ANDERSON, et. al,
Plaintiffs,
v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-03609-BAS-MSB
ORDER GRANTING IN PART,
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SEPARATE
BRIEFING AND TIME EXTENSION
(ECF No. 46)
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ American Airlines, Inc., American Airlines
Group, 	Inc., 	and 	American 	Airlines 	Federal 	Credit 	Union 	(“American 	Airlines
Defendants”) motion for extension of time and separate briefing (ECF No. 46) in
responding to Plaintiffs’ Complaint (ECF No. 1) against American Airlines Defendants
and Coast Flight Training and Management, Inc (“Coast Defendant”). 	For the reasons
discussed herein, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART American
Airlines Defendants’ motion. (ECF No. 46.)
On January 26, 2026, the Court granted Parties’ joint motion and ordered Defendants
to file their response to the Complaint by March 18, 2026. (See ECF No. 23.) Per an email
exchange between Parties following the Court’s prior order, Plaintiffs were under the
Case 3:25-cv-03609-BAS-MSB Document 48 Filed 03/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 3

- 2 - 25cv3609
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
impression that American Airlines Defendants would file a consolidated 35-page motion
to dismiss and transfer venue. 	(See ECF No. 47-1 ¶ 8; see also ECF No. 46 at 10–11.)
American Airlines Defendants now move against filing a consolidated 35-page motion to
dismiss, and instead, move to each file a motion to dismiss for 25 pages each and a single
joint motion to transfer venue of 25 pages; and move for page extensions. (ECF No. 46 at
10–11.) 	American Airlines Defendants also seek an extension of time on the briefing
schedule. (Id. at 13–14.) Plaintiffs oppose American Airlines Defendants’ request to file
separate motions and for page extensions. (ECF No. 47.)
As Henry David Thoreau allegedly wrote in a letter to a friend, a story need not be
long “but it will take a long while to make it short.” Clearly, the parties, who have filed
over 50 pages to argue about a scheduling order, did not have sufficient time to draft their
motion and response. (See ECF Nos. 46, 47.) Thus, the Court is willing to give the parties
sufficient time to craft appropriately pithy motions and responses, but not to extend the
page limits.
If Defendants believe the Motion to Transfer is entirely separate from the Motion to
Dismiss and will not include any duplication (no argument, for example, that the case
should be dismissed for improper venue or be transferred arguing the same factors), then
Defendants may file one separate consolidated Motion to Transfer. 	However, the Court
will not take kindly to reading the same cut and paste sections in multiple Motions.
With respect to the Motions to Dismiss, the three American Airlines Defendants may
file a consolidated Motion to Dismiss and the Coast Defendant may also file its own Motion
to Dismiss, but there will be no increase in page limits.
In sum, the Court 	DENIES 	American Airlines Defendants’ request to each
separately file a motion to dismiss. 	(See ECF No. 46.) 	American Airlines Defendants’
consolidated Motion to Dismiss, Coast Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, or other Responses
to Plaintiffs’ Complaint shall be no longer than 25 pages.
Next, the Court GRANTS American Airlines Defendants’ request to separately file
a motion to transfer, which shall be no longer than 15 pages.
Case 3:25-cv-03609-BAS-MSB Document 48 Filed 03/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 3

- 3 - 25cv3609
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Lastly, given that Plaintiffs do not oppose American Airlines Defendants’ request
for a modified briefing schedule (see ECF No. 47), the Court GRANTS the briefing
schedule proposed by American Airlines Defendants as follows:
• 	Defendants’ Responses to Complaint – March 18, 2026
• 	Plaintiffs’ Opposition Papers – April 17, 2026
• 	Defendants’ Reply Papers – May 1, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 13, 2026
Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Case 3:25-cv-03609-BAS-MSB Document 48 Filed 03/13/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 3