Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Margaret SCHULTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 20-10449

Decided: August 09, 2021

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, WILSON and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. Mason Kerns, Mason Kerns Law, PA, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Humberto H. Ocariz, Brigid Finerty Cech Samole, Greenberg Traurig, PA, Miami, FL, Michael E. Bern, Blake E. Stafford, Latham & Watkins, LLP, Washington, DC, James E. Brandt, Elizabeth Marks, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.

Margaret Schultz appeals the summary judgment in favor of American Airlines, Inc. Schultz sued American for breach of contract for failing to complete an online transaction for an airline ticket significantly cheaper than the ticket she bought. We affirm.

Schultz argues that the district court erred in ruling that the record contradicted her story and that no contract existed, but we need not address those arguments because we can affirm on the third alternative ground stated by the district court. Before we will reverse a “judgment that is based on multiple, independent grounds, an appellant must convince us that every stated ground for the judgment against him is incorrect.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014). If the “appellant fails to challenge properly on appeal one of the grounds on which the district court based its judgment, he is deemed to have abandoned any challenge of that ground ․” Id. The district court ruled that any contract that American created with Schultz due to a malfunction on the airline website would be set aside under the doctrine of unilateral mistake. See Deprince v. Starboard Cruise Servs., 271 So. 3d 11, 20 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018). Because Schultz failed to challenge that alternative ruling in her initial brief, “it follows that the [summary judgment in favor of American Airlines] is due to be affirmed.” Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 680.



Copied to clipboard