Beckstrand v. Delta Airlines Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
John Beckstrand,
Plaintiff,
v.
Delta Airlines Inc.,
Defendant.
Civ. No. 25-2492 (JWB/JFD)
ORDER GRANTING
MOTION TO DISMISS
Aaron Mark Bostrom, Esq., and Pamela Abbate Dattilo, Esq., Eckland & Blando LLP,
counsel for Plaintiff.
Ben D. Kappelman, Esq., Briana Al Taqatqa, Esq., and Julian Nunally, Esq., Dorsey &
Whitney LLP, counsel for Defendant.
Defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). (Doc. No. 7.) After the motion was filed, Plaintiff retained counsel and filed a
response that materially changes the posture of the case. Plaintiff now seeks to withdraw
all federal claims and instead pursue newly proposed state-law theories. (Doc. No. 32.)
That request controls the disposition. The operative Complaint asserts only federal
causes of action. With those claims withdrawn, nothing remains for adjudication on the
present pleading.
The federal claims are dismissed. This Court therefore does not resolve the parties’
dispute over timeliness, exhaustion, or the proper treatment of materials referenced in the
motion. Those issues are unnecessary for disposition.
CASE 0:25-cv-02492-JWB-JFD Doc. 36 Filed 04/24/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Plaintiff also asks, within his response brief, for leave to amend to assert state-law
claims. (Doc. No. 32 at 7–12.) That request is not properly presented. A request for a
court order must be made by motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1). And once the time to amend
as a matter of course has passed, amendment requires either consent or leave of court.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). A complaint may not be amended through briefing filed in
opposition to a motion to dismiss. See Morgan Distrib. Co. v. Unidynamic Corp., 868
F.2d 992, 995 (8th Cir. 1989).
In any event, the proposed amendment would fundamentally change the case.
Plaintiff does not seek to refine the existing claims but to replace them entirely with new
state-law causes of action. At this stage—before any scheduling order, discovery, or
answer—the appropriate course is not to convert this action into a different lawsuit, but to
require that any new claims be brought in a separate, properly filed complaint.
Because no claim remains within this Court’s jurisdiction, the action is dismissed.
To the extent any state-law claims are contemplated, this Court declines to retain
jurisdiction over them. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Plaintiff’s request to amend is denied
without prejudice to filing a new action asserting whatever claims he believes are viable.
ORDER
Based on the above, and on the file, record, and submissions in this case,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 7) is GRANTED IN PART as
set forth above.
2. 	The Complaint (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED.
CASE 0:25-cv-02492-JWB-JFD Doc. 36 Filed 04/24/26 Page 2 of 3

3
3. 	Plaintiff’s request for leave to amend is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE to filing a new action.
4. 	The hearing set for May 5, 2026, is CANCELED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Date: April 24, 2026 	s/ Jerry W. Blackwell
JERRY W. BLACKWELL
United States District Judge
CASE 0:25-cv-02492-JWB-JFD Doc. 36 Filed 04/24/26 Page 3 of 3