LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

AIRTRAN AIRWAYS INC v MICHAEL SHANE LASSETER Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: AAIVMSL222608, CourtName: VENUE IS PROPER IN THIS COURT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 5 139 1, Plaintiff: AIRTRAN AIRWAYS INC, State: DE Delaware, UniqueCaseRef: LCD>AAIVMSL222608, Atlanta, Airport, Security, Airtran, Damages, Passengers, Screening, Duty, Award, Airways, Security Personnel, Grounding, Cancellation, Numerous Flights, Breaches, Suffered Damages, Delaware Corporation, Shane Lassetcr, Georgia, Costs, Pursuant, Akport, Common Areas, Devastation, Heightened Security, Departure, Regular , ContentID: 120249944

Case Documents
1   COMPLAINT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 123629
6 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 1 document , 6 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . COMPLAINT

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
ATLANTA
AIRPORT
SECURITY
AIRTRAN
DAMAGES
PASSENGERS
SCREENING
DUTY
AWARD
AIRWAYS
PLAINTIFF
COURT
SECURITY PERSONNEL
GROUNDING
CANCELLATION
NUMEROUS FLIGHTS
BREACHES
SUFFERED DAMAGES
DELAWARE CORPORATION
SHANE LASSETCR
GEORGIA
COSTS
PURSUANT
AKPORT
COMMON AREAS
DEVASTATION
HEIGHTENED SECURITY
DEPARTURE
REGULAR
                                                 .                    4
A.WT`RAN  AIRWAYS,  INC.,
a Delaware  corporation,

              Plaintiff,

      `VW                                                 Civil  Action  File  No.
                                                 i
MKBAEL        SEbNi2  LASSETBR,                  : :
              Defendant.                         . .


                                          COMPLAINT

       PlainTiE AhTran  Airways,  Inc.  states the following  for its  Complaint  against

MicLael  Shane Lassetcr:

                             PartieS,     Jurisdiction  and Venue


       Plaintiff  AirTran  Ainvays,  Inc. (`cAkTran"),  is a Delaware  corporation with

its principal  place of business in Orlando, Florida.
                                                 2.

       Defendant  MiclxaeI  Shane Lassetar ("Def~dant")  is a resident  of Georgia.



                                           3.

      The matter in controversy  exceeds $75,000, exclusive  of interest and costs.

                                           4.                      L

       This COW  has jurisdiction  pursuant to 2X IX&C.  5 1332.

                                            5.

       Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  5 139 1 _

                            Facts  Comrrrazl t& AU  Counts

                                            6.

       AShan  operates  an  airline  with  passenger service  to  and  from  various

airports,  i&Ming  Hartsfield  Atlanta  International  Airpoxr,  which  is located i.n the
SNIPPETS:
  • PlainTiE AhTran Airways, Inc. states the following for its Complaint against
  • MicLael Shane Lassetcr:
  • Plaintiff AirTran Ainvays, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with
  • The matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
  • This COW has jurisdiction pursuant to 2X IX&C.
  • Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 5 139 1 _
  • Atlanta, Georgia metropolitan area.
  • AirTran entered into an Agreement with the City of Atlanta to lease certain
  • in txemendous devastation and loss of life.
  • airports throughout the United States have been on heightened security status.
  • On November 16, 2001, Defendant enterad we Atlanta Airport.
  • Defendant knowingly and willfully entered a pat of the Common Areas into
  • travel to their departure gates, and not to stand in lines in which other passengers
  • were standing while awaiting security screening.
  • Instead, Defendant bypassed sectity screening, averted regular security
  • Corn security personnel to stop, and failed to turn himself in to security personnel
  • akport, including its evacuations, grounding of all aircraft scheduled to de+,
  • diversion of aircraB scheduled to arrive, and the cancellation of numerous flights.
  • DefenWt had a duty to conduct himself as would a reasonable person under
  • AirTran suffered damages as a result of befendant's breaches.
  • (4 Render judgment in favor of AirTran and against Defendant; C-N Award compensatoq and
  •    |