{"cached_at":"2026-09-30T09:58:14.575566+00:00","cl_docket_id":"68547228","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","id":68547228,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/txnd/","court_id":"txnd","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10584462/"],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/1073/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/68547228/american-alliance-for-equal-rights-v-southwest-airlines-co/","date_created":"2024-05-20T13:22:56.527989-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-30T08:56:16.087940-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Sidney A Fitzwater","referred_to_str":"","panel_str":"","date_last_index":"2024-12-10T03:12:53.888886-08:00","date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2024-05-20","date_terminated":"2025-05-22","date_last_filing":"2025-05-22","case_name_short":"","case_name":"American Alliance for Equal Rights v. Southwest Airlines Co","case_name_full":"","slug":"american-alliance-for-equal-rights-v-southwest-airlines-co","docket_number":"3:24-cv-01209","docket_number_core":"2401209","docket_number_raw":"3:24-cv-01209","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"3","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"D","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"390022","cause":"42:1981 Civil Rights","nature_of_suit":"440 Civil Rights: Other Civil Rights","jury_demand":"None","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2024-05-20T13:22:56.484644-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/15301780/","id":15301780,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10249704/","attorney_id":10249704,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","docket_id":68547228,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10249704/","attorney_id":10249704,"date_action":"2025-04-10","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","docket_id":68547228,"role":6}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","docket_id":68547228,"name":"Interested Party","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"Party and attorney are active (attorney has been terminated to restrict access to sealed filings.)","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-04-10T10:42:14.643884-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-10T10:42:14.643904-07:00","name":"United States of America","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14103507/","id":14103507,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9828410/","attorney_id":9828410,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","docket_id":68547228,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9828410/","attorney_id":9828410,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","docket_id":68547228,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10087026/","attorney_id":10087026,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","docket_id":68547228,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10087026/","attorney_id":10087026,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","docket_id":68547228,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9828411/","attorney_id":9828411,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","docket_id":68547228,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9828411/","attorney_id":9828411,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","docket_id":68547228,"role":4}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","docket_id":68547228,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-05-20T17:45:45.793178-07:00","date_modified":"2024-05-20T17:45:45.793203-07:00","name":"Southwest Airlines Co","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14103506/","id":14103506,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9497255/","attorney_id":9497255,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","docket_id":68547228,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9497255/","attorney_id":9497255,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","docket_id":68547228,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9497256/","attorney_id":9497256,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","docket_id":68547228,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9497256/","attorney_id":9497256,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","docket_id":68547228,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9497257/","attorney_id":9497257,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","docket_id":68547228,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9497257/","attorney_id":9497257,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","docket_id":68547228,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9989036/","attorney_id":9989036,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","docket_id":68547228,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9497258/","attorney_id":9497258,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","docket_id":68547228,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9497258/","attorney_id":9497258,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","docket_id":68547228,"role":4}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","docket_id":68547228,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-05-20T17:45:45.515163-07:00","date_modified":"2024-05-20T17:45:45.515180-07:00","name":"American Alliance for Equal Rights","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/427478528/","id":427478528,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/441677341/","id":441677341,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68547228/69/american-alliance-for-equal-rights-v-southwest-airlines-co/","date_created":"2025-06-04T13:32:39.629893-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-05T02:35:21.165638-07:00","sha1":"66dfb4d02764adca1f4a5ce18a766a2def8ab14c","page_count":3,"file_size":596460,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.390022/gov.uscourts.txnd.390022.69.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txnd.390022/gov.uscourts.txnd.390022.69.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:24-cv-01209-D       Document 69        Filed 05/21/25    Page 1 of 3    PageID 877\n\n\n\n               IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n               FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                          DALLAS DIVISION\n AMERICAN ALLIANCE FOR\n EQUAL RIGHTS,\n                                      Plaintiff,\n        v.                                         Case No. 3:24-CV-1209-D\n\n SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.,\n                                     Defendant.\n\n                      JOINT RESPONSE REGARDING\n                    THE COURT\u2019S SUA SPONTE ORDER\n       After conferring, the parties do not oppose the disposition proposed by the Court in\n\nits May 14, 2025 Order [Dkt. 68] and agree that this Court should enter final judgment in the\n\nAlliance\u2019s favor for nominal damages of $0.01. Though that judgment makes the Alliance the\n\nprevailing party, this Court need not award attorney\u2019s fees or costs because the parties have\n\nsettled the amount that Southwest will pay the Alliance for fees and costs confidentially out\n\nof court.\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01209-D         Document 69       Filed 05/21/25     Page 2 of 3     PageID 878\n\n\n\nDated: May 21, 2025                             Respectfully submitted,\n\n/s/ Tristan Morales                             /s/ Cameron T. Norris\nKimberly Williams (TX Bar No. 24050592)         Thomas R. McCarthy*\nO\u2019MELVENY & MYERS LLP                            (VA Bar No. 47154)\n2801 North Harwood St., Ste. 1600               Cameron T. Norris**\nDallas, TX 75201                                 (TN Bar No. 33467)\n(972) 360-1908                                  Steven C. Begakis**\nkwilliams@omm.com                                (ND Tex. No. 95172VA)\n                                                R. Gabriel Anderson**\nTristan Morales (pro hac vice)                   (TX Bar No. 24129302)\nO\u2019MELVENY & MYERS LLP                           CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC\n1625 Eye St., 10th Floor                        1600 Wilson Blvd., Ste. 700\nWashington, DC 20006                            Arlington, VA 22209\n(202) 383-5112                                  (703) 243-9423\ntmorales@omm.com                                tom@consovoymccarthy.com\n                                                cam@consovoymccarthy.com\nAnton Metlitsky (pro hac vice)                  steven@consovoymccarthy.com\nO\u2019MELVENY & MYERS LLP                           gabe@consovoymccarthy.com\n1301 Ave. of the Americas, Ste. 1700\nNew York, NY 10019                              Adam K. Mortara*\n(212) 326-2000                                   (TN Bar No. 40089)\nametlitsky@omm.com                              LAWFAIR LLC\n                                                40 Burton Hills Blvd., Ste. 200\nCounsel for Defendant Southwest Airlines Co.    Nashville, TN 37215\n                                                (773) 750-7154\n                                                mortara@lawfairllc.com\n\n                                                *pro hac vice\n                                                **member of the Northern District of\n                                                Texas\n\n                                                Counsel for Plaintiff American Alliance for\n                                                Equal Rights\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01209-D       Document 69      Filed 05/21/25     Page 3 of 3     PageID 879\n\n\n\n                           CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n       I hereby certify on May 21, 2025, a true and correct copy of this document was served\n\nelectronically by the Court\u2019s CM/ECF system to all counsel of record.\n\n                                                                    /s/ Cameron T. Norris\n                                                                        Counsel for Plaintiff\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-06-04T13:32:46.406002-07:00","document_number":"69","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017707954","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-06-04T13:32:39.611566-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-04T13:32:39.616289-07:00","date_filed":"2025-05-21","time_filed":null,"entry_number":69,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-05-21.001","pacer_sequence_number":180,"description":"RESPONSE filed by American Alliance for Equal Rights re: 68 Memorandum Opinion and Order, (Norris, Cameron) (Entered: 05/21/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/426308416/","id":426308416,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/440474424/","id":440474424,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68547228/70/american-alliance-for-equal-rights-v-southwest-airlines-co/","date_created":"2025-05-22T16:11:15.125117-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-04T13:32:39.664633-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"70","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017712052","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Judgment","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-05-22T16:11:15.106890-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-04T13:32:39.649890-07:00","date_filed":"2025-05-22","time_filed":"17:32:36","entry_number":70,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-05-22.001","pacer_sequence_number":183,"description":"JUDGMENT: It is ordered that plaintiff American Alliance for Equal Rights recover judgment against defendant Southwest Airlines Co. for nominal damages in the sum of $0.01. (Ordered by Senior Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 5/22/2025) (axm) (Entered: 05/22/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/425436162/","id":425436162,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/439572458/","id":439572458,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68547228/68/american-alliance-for-equal-rights-v-southwest-airlines-co/","date_created":"2025-05-14T15:11:22.443751-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-14T02:02:16.276007-07:00","sha1":"4755df1649cae38ced4c12bc1f457911df236e39","page_count":10,"file_size":136856,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.390022/gov.uscourts.txnd.390022.68.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txnd.390022/gov.uscourts.txnd.390022.68.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":"recap-thumbnails/gov.uscourts.txnd.390022/439572458.thumb.1068.png","thumbnail_status":1,"plain_text":"Case 3:24-cv-01209-D       Document 68       Filed 05/14/25      Page 1 of 10     PageID 867\n\n\n                     IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                     FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                               DALLAS DIVISION\n\nAMERICAN ALLIANCE FOR                          \u00a7\nEQUAL RIGHTS,                                  \u00a7\n                                               \u00a7\n                     Plaintiff,                \u00a7\n                                               \u00a7\nVS.                                            \u00a7    Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-1209-D\n                                               \u00a7\nSOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.,                        \u00a7\n                                               \u00a7\n                     Defendant.                \u00a7\n\n                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION\n                                      AND ORDER\n\n       In this action challenging defendant Southwest Airlines Company\u2019s (\u201cSouthwest\u2019s\u201d)\n\n\u00a1L\u00e1nzate! Travel Award Program (\u201cAward Program\u201d), Southwest has unconditionally\n\nsurrendered to the entry of judgment for complete relief in favor of plaintiff American\n\nAlliance for Equal Rights (\u201cAlliance\u201d). For the reasons that follow, the court raises sua\n\nsponte its intention to enter a final judgment in Alliance\u2019s favor, and it grants both sides 14\n\ndays to oppose this proposed disposition.\n\n                                               I\n\n       In May 2024 Alliance sued Southwest, alleging that two Alliance members were\n\nunable to participate in Southwest\u2019s now-shuttered Award Program because they are not\n\nHispanic. Alliance challenges certain provisions of the Award Program as discriminatory,\n\nin violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1981 et seq. (\u201c\u00a7 1981\u201d), and Title\n\nVI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 2000d et seq. (\u201cTitle VI\u201d). Alliance prays\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01209-D       Document 68       Filed 05/14/25      Page 2 of 10     PageID 868\n\n\nfor declaratory and injunctive relief, nominal damages of $0.01, and reasonable costs and\n\nattorney\u2019s fees.\n\n       After Alliance filed suit, Southwest executed a covenant that unconditionally and\n\nirrevocably eliminated the challenged Award Program provisions and tendered to Alliance\n\nthe sum of $0.01, together with a letter requesting voluntary dismissal of this lawsuit.\n\nAlliance rejected the offer, and Southwest moved to dismiss Alliance\u2019s claims as moot. In\n\nAmerican Alliance for Equal Rights v. Southwest Airlines Co. (\u201cAlliance I\u201d), 2024 WL\n\n5012055 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2024) (Fitzwater, J.), the court dismissed Alliance\u2019s claims for\n\ndeclaratory and injunctive relief on the ground that they had been mooted by the covenant,\n\nid. at *2, but it concluded that Alliance\u2019s claims for nominal damages had not been mooted\n\nby Southwest\u2019s unaccepted settlement offer, id. at *5 (citing Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez,\n\n577 U.S. 153, 156 (2016)). At that point, the case appeared to be ripe for resolution on the\n\nmerits \u201cwith little to no discovery on summary judgment motions.\u201d Am. All. for Equal Rts.\n\nv. Sw. Airlines Co. (\u201cAlliance II\u201d), 2025 WL 295741, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2025)\n\n(denying Southwest\u2019s motion to certify for interlocutory appeal the court\u2019s memorandum\n\nopinion and order in Alliance I).\n\n       As anticipated, without having taken any discovery, Alliance has moved for partial\n\nsummary judgment on its \u00a7 1981 claim.1 Southwest, in turn, has moved the court to forgo\n\n\n\n       1\n       Alliance represents that, if its motion is granted, it will withdraw its remaining Title\nVI claim.\n\n                                             -2-\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01209-D         Document 68      Filed 05/14/25     Page 3 of 10      PageID 869\n\n\nthe merits and enter judgment in Alliance\u2019s favor for nominal damages of $0.01 and\n\nreasonable costs and attorney\u2019s fees. Although neither motion has been fully briefed,2 in\n\nlight of Southwest\u2019s unconditional surrender to the entry of judgment for complete relief in\n\nAlliance\u2019s favor, the court now raises sua sponte that it intends to forgo the merits and sua\n\nsponte enter final judgment in Alliance\u2019s favor for nominal damages of $0.01 and reasonable\n\ncosts and attorney\u2019s fees.\n\n                                               II\n\n       When a defendant unconditionally surrenders to the entry of final judgment for all the\n\nrelief that the plaintiff could have recovered had it prevailed on the merits, but the plaintiff\n\nresists the entry of such judgment, a district court can exercise its inherent authority to\n\nmanage its docket efficiently and expeditiously, forgo deciding the case on the merits, and\n\nsua sponte enter final judgment for complete relief in favor of the plaintiff.3\n\n                                               A\n\n       \u201c[A] court has discretion to halt a lawsuit by entering judgment for the plaintiff when\n\nthe defendant unconditionally surrenders and only the plaintiff\u2019s obstinacy or madness\n\nprevents her from accepting total victory.\u201d Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S.\n\n\n       2\n        Alliance has filed a response in opposition. With leave of court, the United States\nhas filed a statement of interest.\n       3\n         The court sometimes refers to the entry of final judgment in favor of the plaintiff for\nall of the relief that the plaintiff could have recovered had it prevailed on the merits as\n\u201ccomplete relief\u201d or \u201ctotal victory,\u201d and to a plaintiff who resists the entry of such judgment\nas the \u201cobstinate plaintiff.\u201d\n\n                                             -3-\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01209-D        Document 68       Filed 05/14/25      Page 4 of 10     PageID 870\n\n\n66, 85 (2013) (Kagan, J., dissenting), analysis adopted, at least in part, by Campbell-Ewald,\n\n577 U.S. at 162.\n\n              [A] party [cannot] force his opponent to confess to having\n              violated the law, as it is always open to a defendant to default\n              and suffer judgment to be entered against him without his\n              admitting anything\u2014if he wants, without even appearing in the\n              case. And if the defendant has thus thrown in the towel there is\n              nothing left for the district court to do except enter judgment.\n\nChathas v. Local 134 Int\u2019l Brotherhood of Elec. Workers, 233 F.3d 508, 512 (7th Cir. 2000)\n\n(Posner, J.) (citation omitted); see also Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 592 U.S. 279, 303-04\n\n(2021) (Roberts, C.J., dissenting) (suggesting that \u201c[w]here a plaintiff asks only for a dollar,\n\nthe defendant should be able to end the case by giving him a dollar, without the court needing\n\nto pass on the merits of the plaintiff\u2019s claims\u201d and agreeing with amicus United States\u2019s\n\nargument that \u201cthe defendant should be able to end the litigation without a resolution of the\n\nconstitutional merits, simply by accepting the entry of judgment for nominal damages against\n\nhim.\u201d); id. at 293-94 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (agreeing with the same).\n\n                                               B\n\n       A district court may forgo the merits and sua sponte grant the obstinate plaintiff total\n\nvictory pursuant to its \u201cinherent authority.\u201d4 District courts \u201cpossess certain \u2018inherent\n\n\n       4\n        Although the proposition that a district court may forgo the merits and grant the\nobstinate plaintiff total victory is not novel, see supra \u00a7 II(A), and courts have done so, there\nhas not emerged a persuasive articulation of the source of a district court\u2019s authority. See,\ne.g., Ward v. Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist., 393 F.3d 599, 603 (5th Cir. 2004) (dismissing for\nlack of standing plaintiff\u2019s appeal from judgment in his favor where district court forwent\nmerits and sua sponte granted plaintiff complete relief); S. Orange Chiropractic Ctr., LLC\n\n                                              -4-\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01209-D       Document 68        Filed 05/14/25      Page 5 of 10        PageID 871\n\n\npowers,\u2019 not conferred by rule or statute, \u2018to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the\n\norderly and expeditious disposition of cases.\u2019\u201d In re Highland Cap. Mgmt., L.P., 105 F.4th\n\n830, 839 (5th Cir. 2024) (quoting Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 581 U.S. 101, 107\n\n(2017)); see also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962). Among them is\n\n\n\nv. Cayan LLC, 2016 WL 1441791, at *5 (D. Mass. Apr. 12, 2016) (entering judgment in\nobstinate plaintiff\u2019s favor without identifying authority to do so); Witt v. GC Servs. Ltd.\nP\u2019ship, 2015 WL 273838, at *2 (D. Colo. Jan. 20, 2015) (purporting to rely on Justice\nKagan\u2019s Genesis Healthcare dissent). So far as the court is aware, only the Second Circuit\nhas attempted an explanation:\n\n              Our decisions appear to recognize that where a defendant\n              surrenders to \u201ccomplete relief\u201d in satisfaction of a plaintiff\u2019s\n              claims, the district court may enter default judgment against the\n              defendant\u2014even without the plaintiff\u2019s agreement thereto\u2014and\n              then, after judgment is entered, the plaintiff\u2019s individual claims\n              will become moot for purposes of Article III.\n\nRadha Geismann, M.D., P.C. v. ZocDoc, Inc., 909 F.3d 534, 542 (2d Cir. 2018) (cleaned up)\n(collecting cases).\n        The conclusion that a district court has inherent authority to grant an obstinate\nplaintiff total victory finds support in Justice Kagan\u2019s Genesis Healthcare dissent:\n\n              Nor does a court have inherent authority to enter an unwanted\n              judgment for Smith on her individual claim, in service of wiping\n              out her proposed collective action. To be sure, a court has\n              discretion to halt a lawsuit by entering judgment for the plaintiff\n              when the defendant unconditionally surrenders and only the\n              plaintiff\u2019s obstinacy or madness prevents her from accepting\n              total victory. But the court may not take that tack when the\n              supposed capitulation in fact fails to give the plaintiff all the law\n              authorizes and she has sought.\n\nGenesis Healthcare, 569 U.S. at 85 (Kagan, J., dissenting) (emphasis added).\n\n\n                                              -5-\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01209-D       Document 68       Filed 05/14/25     Page 6 of 10     PageID 872\n\n\n\u201cthe inherent authority to manage their dockets and courtrooms with a view toward the\n\nefficient and expedient resolution of cases.\u201d Dietz v. Bouldin., 579 U.S. 40, 47 (2016); see\n\nalso Johnson v. Lumpkin, 74 F.4th 334, 342 (5th Cir. 2023) (describing such authority as\n\n\u201cfirmly established\u201d), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 829 (2024). This authority, however, is not\n\nunlimited. See NASCO, Inc. v. Calcasieu Television & Radio, Inc., 894 F.2d 696, 702 (5th\n\nCir.1990) (\u201c[Inherent authority] is not a broad reservoir of power, ready at an imperial hand,\n\nbut a limited source; an implied power squeezed from the need to make the court function.\u201d),\n\naff\u2019d, 501 U.S. 32 (1991)). Its exercise (1) \u201cmust be a reasonable response to the problems\n\nand needs confronting the court\u2019s fair administration of justice,\u201d and (2) \u201ccannot be contrary\n\nto any express grant of or limitation on the district court\u2019s power contained in a rule or\n\nstatute.\u201d Dietz, 579 U.S. at 45 (internal quotation marks omitted). The sua sponte entry of\n\nfinal judgment for complete relief in favor of an obstinate plaintiff fits comfortably within\n\nthese limits.\n\n                                              C\n\n                                              1\n\n       First, granting an obstinate plaintiff total victory upon the defendant\u2019s unconditional\n\nsurrender is a reasonable response to the problems and needs confronting the court\u2019s fair\n\nadministration of justice. A plaintiff\u2019s obstinacy when confronted with the defendant\u2019s\n\nunconditional surrender can result in increased costs and delay, the twin enemies of justice.\n\nSee id. at 45 (citing Rule 1) (describing \u201cthe just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of\n\n\n                                            -6-\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01209-D        Document 68         Filed 05/14/25      Page 7 of 10       PageID 873\n\n\ndisputes\u201d as \u201cparamount\u201d); Dondi Props. Corp. v. Com. Sav. & Loan Ass\u2019n, 121 F.R.D. 284,\n\n286 (N.D. Tex. 1988) (en banc) (citing Rule 1) (\u201cWe attempt to carry out our responsibilities\n\nin the most prompt and efficient manner, recognizing that justice delayed, and justice\n\nobtained at excessive cost, is often justice denied.\u201d).5 When in response to an opponent\u2019s\n\ncomplete and unconditional surrender a plaintiff holds out for a decision on the merits rather\n\nthan accept total victory in terms of the remedy awarded, the litigation drags on, potentially\n\nat great cost, through discovery, motion practice, and (possibly) trial. These costs are borne\n\nby the parties, the court, and other litigants from whom the court\u2019s limited resources are\n\ndiverted. And this occurs despite the fact that the plaintiff is not entitled to a decision on the\n\nmerits. See Ward v. Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist., 393 F.3d 599, 603-04 (5th Cir. 2004). A\n\ndecision on the merits is not an end in itself, but a means by which a plaintiff can recover the\n\nrelief prayed for. Once a judgment entitles the plaintiff to all of the relief for which it sues,\n\nvictory is total. See Campbell-Ewald, 577 U.S. at 163-65.\n\n       Total victory is just that: all that the plaintiff would be entitled to if it prevailed on the\n\nmerits. Entry of judgment in the plaintiff\u2019s favor awarding a legally available remedy that\n\nthe plaintiff seeks is a reasonable response. The plaintiff is granted all that it could have\n\n\n       5\n        Indeed, United States judges have an ethical obligation to \u201cdispose promptly of the\nbusiness of the court.\u201d Code of Conduct for United States Judges, 175 F.R.D. 363, 367,\nCanon 3(A)(5) (1998); see also id. at 370, Canon 3 cmt. Canon 3(A)(5) (\u201cIn disposing of\nmatters promptly, efficiently and fairly, a judge must demonstrate due regard for the rights\nof the parties to be heard and to have issues resolved without unnecessary cost or delay. A\njudge should monitor and supervise cases so as to reduce or eliminate dilatory practices,\navoidable delays and unnecessary costs.\u201d).\n\n                                               -7-\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01209-D        Document 68      Filed 05/14/25      Page 8 of 10     PageID 874\n\n\nrecovered had it prevailed on the merits, and all stakeholders are relieved of further cost and\n\ndelay.\n\n                                              2\n\n         Second, the court is not aware of any contrary rule or statute.6 Although the Rules\n\ncontemplate that a district court can act sua sponte, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) and 56(f),\n\nand they provide for the entry of judgment against a defaulting defendant, see Rule 55,\n\nneither these nor any other rules impose an implicit limitation that prohibits a court from\n\nforgoing the merits and sua sponte entering judgment for complete relief in the plaintiff\u2019s\n\nfavor when the defendant unconditionally surrenders. See Nat. Gas Pipeline Co. of Am. v.\n\nEnergy Gathering, Inc., 2 F.3d 1397, 1407-08 (5th Cir. 1993) (\u201c[W]here the rules directly\n\nmandate a specific procedure to the exclusion of others, inherent authority is proscribed.\u201d);\n\nChambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 49 (1991) (\u201cThe Court\u2019s prior cases have indicated\n\nthat the inherent power of a court can be invoked even if procedural rules exist which\n\nsanction the same conduct.\u201d); id. at 47 (\u201c\u2018[W]e do not lightly assume that Congress has\n\nintended to depart from established principles\u2019 such as the scope of a court\u2019s inherent\n\npower.\u201d).\n\n\n\n\n         6\n        Although the court is raising sua sponte its intention to enter a final judgment in\nAlliance\u2019s favor, and therefore has not had the benefit of the parties\u2019 briefing on the matter,\nthe court is granting the parties leave to oppose the court\u2019s proposed disposition. Thus the\nparties will have the opportunity to raise any contrary rule or statute if one exists.\n\n                                             -8-\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01209-D       Document 68        Filed 05/14/25     Page 9 of 10     PageID 875\n\n\n                                              III\n\n       Forgoing the merits and entering final judgment sua sponte in Alliance\u2019s favor for\n\nnominal damages of $0.01 and reasonable costs and attorney\u2019s fees is an appropriate exercise\n\nof inherent authority because Southwest has unconditionally surrendered, and the entry of\n\nsuch judgment would grant Alliance total victory. Southwest represents in its motion for\n\nentry of judgment that it surrenders to entry of judgment in Alliance\u2019s favor for $0.01 in\n\nnominal damages and reasonable costs and attorney\u2019s fees, provided the court does not reach\n\nthe merits. This is unconditional surrender to all of the relief that Alliance could recover if\n\nit prevailed on the merits. See Compl. (ECF No. 1) \u00b6 53 (praying for, inter alia, \u201c[n]ominal\n\ndamages of $0.01\u201d and \u201c[r]easonable costs and expenses of this action, including attorneys\u2019\n\nfees, under 42 U.S.C. \u00a71988 and any other applicable laws\u201d); Uzuegbunam, 592 U.S. at 290-\n\n92 (characterizing nominal damages as compensatory, backward-looking relief, rather than\n\na mere artifice for obtaining a retrospective declaratory judgment); Ward, 393 F.3d at 604-05\n\n(rejecting contention that nominal damages are a means of securing a judicial declaration of\n\nillegality and explaining that a ruling on the merits is not \u201crelief\u201d to which any plaintiff is\n\nentitled); 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1988(b) (making eligible for an award of reasonable attorney\u2019s fees\n\nprevailing parties in any action to enforce, inter alia, \u00a7 1981 and Title VI).\n\n                                          *    *    *\n\n       Accordingly, the court raises sua sponte that it intends to exercise its inherent\n\nauthority to enter final judgment in Alliance\u2019s favor for nominal damages of $0.01 and\n\n\n                                              -9-\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01209-D      Document 68       Filed 05/14/25     Page 10 of 10      PageID 876\n\n\nreasonable costs and attorney\u2019s fees. Because the court has raised this proposed disposition\n\nsua sponte, it grants both parties leave to file an opposition within 14 days of the date this\n\nmemorandum opinion and order is filed.\n\n       SO ORDERED.\n\n       May 14, 2025.\n\n\n\n                                           _________________________________\n                                           SIDNEY A. FITZWATER\n                                           SENIOR JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n                                            - 10 -\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-05-15T01:51:34.008270-07:00","document_number":"68","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017689887","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Memorandum Opinion and Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-05-14T15:11:22.363142-07:00","date_modified":"2025-06-14T02:02:16.269932-07:00","date_filed":"2025-05-14","time_filed":"16:33:21","entry_number":68,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-05-14.001","pacer_sequence_number":178,"description":" MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER raising sua sponte that the court intends to exercise its inherent authority to enter final judgment in Alliance's favor for nominal damages of $0.01 and reasonable costs and attorney's fees and granting the parties 14 days to file an opposition response. Responses due 5/28/2025.    (Ordered by Senior Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 5/14/2025) (Senior Judge Sidney A Fitzwater)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/423406131/","id":423406131,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/437468171/","id":437468171,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68547228/65/american-alliance-for-equal-rights-v-southwest-airlines-co/","date_created":"2025-04-24T12:42:01.738283-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T16:56:04.579521-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"65","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017624284","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-04-24T12:42:01.724795-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T16:56:04.572111-07:00","date_filed":"2025-04-17","time_filed":null,"entry_number":65,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-04-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":166,"description":"Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct Local Rule 7.1 Briefing Schedule filed by Southwest Airlines Co (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Morales, Tristan) (Entered: 04/17/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/423406130/","id":423406130,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/437468170/","id":437468170,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68547228/64/american-alliance-for-equal-rights-v-southwest-airlines-co/","date_created":"2025-04-24T12:42:01.698571-07:00","date_modified":"2025-05-06T09:06:02.013715-07:00","sha1":"ae1cbad9172aacdffc6b59c2e8b6e464f3231b2e","page_count":8,"file_size":222340,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.390022/gov.uscourts.txnd.390022.64.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txnd.390022/gov.uscourts.txnd.390022.64.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":"recap-thumbnails/gov.uscourts.txnd.390022/437468170.thumb.1068.png","thumbnail_status":1,"plain_text":"Case 3:24-cv-01209-D            Document 64        Filed 04/10/25       Page 1 of 8      PageID 841\n\n\n\n\n                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                               NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                                    DALLAS DIVISION\n\n\n      AMERICAN ALLIANCE FOR EQUAL\n      RIGHTS,\n\n                             Plaintiff,\n                                                      Case No. 3:24-cv-01209-D\n             v.\n\n      SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.,\n\n                             Defendant.\n\n\n\n           STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\n          The United States submits this Statement of Interest under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 517 1 to make\n\nclear that, by offering only Hispanic students the opportunity to enter the 2024 \u00a1L\u00e1nzate!/Take\n\nOff! Travel Award Program and denying that opportunity to all other students on the basis of\n\ntheir race and ethnicity, Defendant Southwest Airlines, Co. (Southwest) facially discriminated\n\nagainst non-Hispanic students in violation of 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1981. 2\n\n                              INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES\n\n          The United States has a strong interest in protecting the civil rights of all Americans,\n\nincluding the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of protected characteristics. While\n\n\n\n\n1\n  Under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 517, \u201c[t]he Solicitor General, or any officer of the Department of Justice,\nmay be sent by the Attorney General to any State or district in the United States to attend to the\ninterests of the United States in a suit pending in a court of the United States, or in a court of a\nState, or to attend to any other interest of the United States.\u201d\n2\n    The United States expresses no view on any issues in this case other than those set forth herein.\n                                                                                                       1\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01209-D          Document 64        Filed 04/10/25       Page 2 of 8      PageID 842\n\n\n\n\n42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1981 is enforced by private action rather than by the Attorney General, the United\n\nStates nevertheless has an interest in the proper application of \u00a7 1981 because, like Title VI of\n\nthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, \u00a7 1981\u2019s protections are coextensive with the\n\nFourteenth Amendment\u2019s Equal Protection Clause. See Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 343\n\n(2003) (citing Gen. Bldg. Contractors Assn., Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375, 389-91 (1982)\n\n(\u00a7 1981 coextensive with Equal Protection); Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S.\n\n265, 287 (1978) (Title VI coextensive with Equal Protection)); see also Students for Fair\n\nAdmissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 600 U.S. 181, 198 n.2 (2023); Gratz v.\n\nBollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 275 n.23 (2003). The United States has responsibility for enforcing\n\nTitle VI and the availability of relief under \u00a7 1981 for acts of racial discrimination may affect the\n\nallocation of government resources in enforcing the provisions of Title VI. Furthermore, under\n\nExecutive Order 14,173, \u201cEnding Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based\n\nOpportunity,\u201d \u201c[i]t is the policy of the United States to protect the civil rights of all Americans\n\nand to promote individual initiative, excellence, and hard work.\u201d 90 Fed. Reg. 8,633 (Jan. 21,\n\n2025). To that end, the United States seeks \u201cto combat illegal private-sector [diversity, equity,\n\nand inclusion] preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities.\u201d Id.\n\n                                         BACKGROUND\n\n       Pending before this Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff\n\nAmerican Alliance for Equal Rights (the Alliance), seeking judgment in its favor on its claim\n\n\n\n\nSTATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                                                 2\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01209-D          Document 64        Filed 04/10/25      Page 3 of 8      PageID 843\n\n\n\n\nunder 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1981 3 challenging Defendant Southwest\u2019s 2024 \u00a1L\u00e1nzate!/Take Off! Travel\n\nAward Program as discriminatory. Pl.\u2019s Mot. for Summ. J. (hereinafter Pl.\u2019s MSJ) (ECF No. 51);\n\nCompl. \u00b6\u00b6 36-45 (ECF No. 1).\n\n       The Alliance\u2019s \u00a7 1981 claim is based on the straightforward allegation that Southwest\n\noffered the 2024 \u00a1L\u00e1nzate!/Take Off! Travel Award Program subject to an explicitly\n\ndiscriminatory classification: only Hispanic students were eligible. See Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 2, 12-13, 37,\n\n44. (ECF No. 1). As Southwest describes it, the \u00a1L\u00e1nzate!/Take Off! Travel Award Program has\n\nbeen offered annually for two decades in partnership with the Hispanic Association of Colleges\n\nand Universities to \u201chelp[] students stay connected with their families and communities while\n\npursuing higher education by awarding Southwest flight passes to students who apply and are\n\nselected each year.\u201d Def.\u2019s Mot. to Dismiss & Br. in Supp. (hereinafter Def.\u2019s MTD) at 1 (ECF\n\nNo. 20) (internal quotation marks omitted). But Southwest\u2019s prior briefing omits the key fact that\n\nstudents were required to \u201cidentify direct or parental ties to a specific country to determine\n\nHispanic origin\u201d to be eligible for the program. See Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 2, 13 (ECF No. 1) (quoting 2024\n\n\u00a1L\u00e1nzate!/Take Off! Rules and Regulations, Eligibility Criteria, perma.cc/K68Q-5SSR). In a\n\ndocument entitled \u201c2024 \u00a1L\u00e1nzate!/Take Off! Higher Education Travel Award Program,\n\nFrequently Asked Questions,\u201d Southwest stated: \u201cIs this program ONLY for Hispanic\n\nstudents? Yes, students must identify direct or parental ties to a specific country to determine\n\n\n\n\n3\n  Although the Alliance also raised a Title VI claim in its Complaint (ECF No. 1), it has moved\nfor summary judgment solely on its claim under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1981 and proposes to withdraw its\nTitle VI claim if its motion is successful, see Pl.\u2019s Mot. for Summ. J. at 1 (ECF No. 51). Because\nthe Title VI claim is not at issue in the instant Motion, the United States expresses no opinion\nwith respect to the Title VI claim.\n\n\nSTATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                                              3\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01209-D          Document 64         Filed 04/10/25       Page 4 of 8      PageID 844\n\n\n\n\nHispanic origin.\u201d Pl.\u2019s MSJ Ex. D, Pltf.-App. 8 (ECF No. 51-3 at 9); 2024 \u00a1L\u00e1nzate!/Take Off!\n\nFAQs (archived May 2, 2024), perma.cc/D59G-WWLM (emphasis in original).\n\n       Southwest does not dispute the authenticity of the FAQ or Rules and Regulations\n\ndocuments; rather, Southwest\u2019s Answer allows the documents to speak for themselves. See\n\nAnswer \u00b6 12 (ECF No. 45) (\u201cSouthwest refers to that document as the best evidence of its\n\ncontents\u201d); \u00b6 13 (same). The Alliance asserts that two of its members, who are not Hispanic,\n\nattempted to apply for the 2024 \u00a1L\u00e1nzate!/Take Off! Travel Award Program but were unable to\n\nmeet the stated requirements because of the restriction limiting eligibility to Hispanic students.\n\nCompl. \u00b6\u00b6 26-34 (ECF No. 1) (describing anonymous Members A and B, of Chinese and\n\nRussian descent, respectively).\n\n                                           DISCUSSION\n\n       Section 1981 provides that \u201c[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall\n\nhave the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed\n\nby white citizens . . . .\u201d 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1981(a). \u201cAmong the many statutes that combat racial\n\ndiscrimination, \u00a7 1981, originally \u00a7 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27, has a specific\n\nfunction: It protects the equal right of \u2018[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States\u2019\n\nto \u2018make and enforce contracts\u2019 without respect to race.\u201d Domino\u2019s Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, 546\n\nU.S. 470, 474-75 (2006) (quoting 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1981(a)). In the years since 1866, courts have\n\nclarified that \u00a7 1981\u2019s protections apply broadly to allegations of racial discrimination, including\n\nthat based on ethnicity and ancestry. See Saint Francis Coll. v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604, 613\n\n(1987) (holding that race discrimination under \u00a7 1981 includes ethnicity and ancestry);\n\nMcDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U.S. 273, 287 (1976) (holding that the phrase \u201cas\n\nis enjoyed by white citizens\u201d should not be read as limiting protections to non-whites, but\n\n\n\nSTATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                                                   4\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01209-D          Document 64        Filed 04/10/25        Page 5 of 8      PageID 845\n\n\n\n\n\u201csimply as emphasizing the racial character of the rights being protected\u201d) (internal quotation\n\nmarks omitted). A program imposing a racial classification that impedes the equal ability to\n\nmake and enforce contracts can escape \u00a7 1981 liability only if it meets the requirements of strict\n\nscrutiny. See Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 720 (2007)\n\n(holding that an express race classification violates Equal Protection Clause unless it is narrowly\n\ntailored to achieve a compelling interest).\n\n       While Southwest has not admitted that the 2024 \u00a1L\u00e1nzate!/Take Off! Travel Award\n\nProgram discriminated based on race or ethnicity, there is no dispute that the program was \u201conly\n\nfor Hispanic students\u201d who identify \u201cdirect or parental ties to a specific country.\u201d See Compl. \u00b6 2\n\n(ECF No. 1); 2024 \u00a1L\u00e1nzate!/Take Off! FAQs. \u201cSummary judgment is appropriate \u2018if the movant\n\nshows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to\n\njudgment as a matter of law.\u2019\u201d Maxim Crane Works, L.P. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 11 F.4th 345,\n\n350 (5th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). \u201cOnly disputes over facts that\n\nmight affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of\n\nsummary judgment.\u201d Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Here, the\n\nAlliance has presented direct evidence of facial discrimination that, absent contrary evidence or a\n\nsufficiently compelling justification, establishes a violation of \u00a7 1981 as a matter of law. 4\n\n       A.      Discrimination against non-Hispanics violates \u00a7 1981.\n\n       Southwest\u2019s discrimination against the Alliance\u2019s non-Hispanic members constitutes a\n\ncognizable basis for a \u00a7 1981 violation. See Saint Francis Coll., 481 U.S. at 613 (\u201cintentional\n\n\n\n\n4\n The United States expresses no opinion regarding any other elements of the Alliance\u2019s \u00a7 1981\nclaim not set forth herein, including but not limited to what constitutes a contract under \u00a7 1981.\n\n\nSTATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                                                5\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01209-D          Document 64         Filed 04/10/25       Page 6 of 8      PageID 846\n\n\n\n\ndiscrimination solely because of their ancestry or ethnic characteristics. . . is racial discrimination\n\nthat Congress intended \u00a7 1981 to forbid, whether or not it would be classified as racial\u201d in the\n\nstrictest sense). Courts have permitted claims under \u00a7 1981 to proceed where the alleged\n\ndiscrimination involved classification based on \u201cMexican American\u201d descent or Spanish\n\nsurname. See, e.g., Manzanares v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 593 F.2d 968, 971 (10th Cir. 1979)\n\n(\u201c[S]ection 1981 is directed to racial discrimination primarily, but is not necessarily limited to\n\nthe technical or restrictive meaning of \u2018race.\u2019\u201d); see also Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U.S. at\n\n287; Students for Fair Admissions, 600 U.S. at 235 (Thomas, J., concurring).\n\n       Thus, \u00a7 1981 prohibits intentionally discriminatory contracting that classifies individuals\n\nby their Hispanic ethnicity or race, regardless of whether such classification is intended to\n\npreference or to exclude that group. See White Glove Staffing, Inc. v. Methodist Hosps. of Dallas,\n\n947 F.3d 301, 308 (5th Cir. 2020) (citing evidence that defendant \u201c\u2018wanted only Hispanics\u2019 and\n\ndid not want \u2018anybody else\u2019\u201d); Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U.S. at 287.\n\n       B.      An explicit racial preference in contracting is direct evidence of a \u00a7 1981\n               violation.\n\n       An explicit racial classification to determine an individual\u2019s eligibility to enter a contract\n\nis a clear and unequivocal example of intentional discrimination that violates \u00a7 1981. See Gen.\n\nBldg. Contractors Ass\u2019n, 458 U.S. at 391 (\u201c\u00a7 1981, like the Equal Protection Clause, can be\n\nviolated only by purposeful discrimination\u201d). While intentional discrimination may be\n\nestablished in a variety of ways, an \u201cexplicitly racial classification\u201d establishes discriminatory\n\nintent as a matter of law. Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385, 389 (1969); see also Miller v.\n\nJohnson, 515 U.S. 900, 904-05 (1995).\n\n\n\n\nSTATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                                                6\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01209-D          Document 64        Filed 04/10/25       Page 7 of 8      PageID 847\n\n\n\n\n       Proof of an express racial classification constitutes direct evidence of intentional\n\ndiscrimination without regard to any \u201carguably benign motives\u201d that may underlie the decision to\n\nimpose the classification. Int\u2019l Union, United Auto. Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of\n\nAm. v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187, 199 (1991); see also Jerge v. City of Hemphill, 80\n\nF. App\u2019x 347, 350 (5th Cir. 2003) (\u201cDirect evidence is evidence which, if believed, proves the\n\nfact of intentional discrimination without inference or presumption.\u201d (internal quotation marks\n\nomitted)). When an offer to enter a contract is based on the race of the other party, \u201c[i]t does not\n\nmatter if the recipient discriminates in order to advance some further benign \u2018intention\u2019 or\n\n\u2018motivation.\u2019\u201d Students for Fair Admissions, 600 U.S. at 289 (Gorsuch, J., concurring).\n\n                                         CONCLUSION\n\n       The Alliance has presented direct evidence sufficient to support its claim of racial\n\ndiscrimination in violation of \u00a7 1981. If Southwest fails to produce contrary evidence or a\n\ncompelling justification that meets the stringent requirements of strict scrutiny, the Court should\n\ngrant the Alliance\u2019s Motion for Summary Judgment on its \u00a7 1981 claim.\n\n\n\n\nSTATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                                                  7\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01209-D       Document 64   Filed 04/10/25    Page 8 of 8   PageID 848\n\n\n\n\nDated: April 10, 2025                      Respectfully submitted,\n\n\nCHAD MEACHAM                               HARMEET K. DHILLON\nActing United States Attorney              Assistant Attorney General\nNorthern District of Texas                 Civil Rights Division\n\n\n /s/ Kenneth G. Coffin                     /s/ Jenna Grambort\nKenneth G. Coffin                          CHRISTINE STONEMAN (DC Bar No. 462557)\nAssistant United States Attorney           Chief\nTexas Bar No. 24076986                     JENNA GRAMBORT (CA Bar No. 273542)\n1100 Commerce Street, Third Floor          Trial Attorney\nDallas, Texas 75242-1699                   Federal Coordination and Compliance Section\nTelephone: 214-659-8646                    Civil Rights Division\nkenneth.coffin@usdoj.gov                   U.S. Department of Justice\n                                           950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW \u2013 4CON\n                                           Washington, DC 20530\n                                           Telephone: (202) 307-2222\n                                           jenna.grambort@usdoj.gov\n\n\n\n\nSTATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                             8\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-04-24T12:42:02.828920-07:00","document_number":"64","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017609246","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-04-24T12:42:01.672234-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T16:56:04.552224-07:00","date_filed":"2025-04-10","time_filed":null,"entry_number":64,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-04-10.003","pacer_sequence_number":164,"description":"Statement of Interest filed by United States of America (ykp) (Entered: 04/10/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/422740279/","id":422740279,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/436780029/","id":436780029,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68547228/66/american-alliance-for-equal-rights-v-southwest-airlines-co/","date_created":"2025-04-17T14:23:49.936615-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T16:56:04.596611-07:00","sha1":"6a6c6af9feaee4a0b6f8e0d3827025485ada20e4","page_count":1,"file_size":117210,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.390022/gov.uscourts.txnd.390022.66.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txnd.390022/gov.uscourts.txnd.390022.66.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:24-cv-01209-D          Document 66        Filed 04/17/25      Page 1 of 1      PageID 854\n\n\n\n                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                             NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                                  DALLAS DIVISION\n\nAMERICAN ALLIANCE FOR\nEQUAL RIGHTS,\n\n                                        Plaintiff,\n\n       v.                                                Case No. 3:24-CV-1209-D\n\nSOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.,\n\n                                     Defendant.\n\n\n                                             ORDER\n\n       The Court, having considered the parties Joint Motion to Amend Local Rule 7.1 Briefing\n\nSchedule, hereby GRANTS the motion.\n\n       Defendant\u2019s deadline to respond to Plaintiff\u2019s Motion for Summary Judgment is extended\n\nto May 22, 2025, and Plaintiff\u2019s deadline to reply is extended to June 12, 2025. Plaintiff\u2019s deadline\n\nto respond to Defendant\u2019s Motion for Judgment is extended to May 13, 2025.\n\n\n       SO ORDERED.\n\n\n       April 17, 2025.\n\n\n                                                     _______________________________________\n                                                     SIDNEY A. FITZWATER\n                                                     SENIOR JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n                                                  1\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-04-17T14:25:43.675500-07:00","document_number":"66","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017625500","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order Setting Deadline/Hearing AND ~Util - Terminate Motions","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-04-17T14:23:49.924430-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T16:56:04.588211-07:00","date_filed":"2025-04-17","time_filed":"15:55:33","entry_number":66,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-04-17.002","pacer_sequence_number":168,"description":"ORDER granting the parties 65 Joint Motion to Amend: Defendant's deadline to respond to Plaintiff's 51 Motion for Summary Judgment is extended to 5/22/2025, and Plaintiff's deadline to reply is extended to 6/12/2025. Plaintiff's deadline to respond to Defendant's 61 Motion for Judgment is extended to 5/13/2025. (Ordered by Senior Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 4/17/2025) (twd) (Entered: 04/17/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/421994225/","id":421994225,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/436010077/","id":436010077,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68547228/63/american-alliance-for-equal-rights-v-southwest-airlines-co/","date_created":"2025-04-10T10:42:13.681789-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T16:56:04.543903-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"63","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-04-10T10:42:13.661696-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T16:56:04.536111-07:00","date_filed":"2025-04-10","time_filed":null,"entry_number":63,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-04-10.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 62 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Statement of Interest filed by United States of America. (Unless the document has already been filed, clerk to enter the document as of the date of this order.) (Ordered by Senior Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 4/10/2025) (Senior Judge Sidney A Fitzwater) (Entered: 04/10/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/421994224/","id":421994224,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/436010076/","id":436010076,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68547228/62/american-alliance-for-equal-rights-v-southwest-airlines-co/","date_created":"2025-04-10T10:42:13.635272-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T16:56:04.522069-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"62","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017607320","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-04-10T10:42:13.611945-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T16:56:04.514192-07:00","date_filed":"2025-04-10","time_filed":null,"entry_number":62,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-04-10.001","pacer_sequence_number":156,"description":"Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Statement of Interest filed by United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A). Party United States of America added.Attorney Kenneth G Coffin-DOJ added to party United States of America(pty:ip) (Coffin-DOJ, Kenneth) (Entered: 04/10/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/421976369/","id":421976369,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/435991958/","id":435991958,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2025-04-10T09:08:37.940944-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-10T09:08:37.943917-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Leave to File","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-04-10T09:08:37.936103-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-10T09:08:37.936111-07:00","date_filed":"2025-04-10","time_filed":"11:04:35","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-04-10.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/421871791/","id":421871791,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/435884641/","id":435884641,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68547228/61/american-alliance-for-equal-rights-v-southwest-airlines-co/","date_created":"2025-04-09T12:36:45.118573-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T16:56:04.499644-07:00","sha1":"c0eed4a623022537196341bc6035049c4b9a7d47","page_count":8,"file_size":194688,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.390022/gov.uscourts.txnd.390022.61.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txnd.390022/gov.uscourts.txnd.390022.61.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:24-cv-01209-D          Document 61        Filed 04/09/25       Page 1 of 8      PageID 818\n\n\n\n                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n                             NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n                                  DALLAS DIVISION\n\nAMERICAN ALLIANCE FOR\nEQUAL RIGHTS,\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nv.                                                    Case No. 3:24-cv-01209-D\n\nSOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.,\n\nDefendant.\n\n\n        DEFENDANT SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.\u2019S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF\n                    JUDGMENT AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT\n\n\n        Plaintiff American Alliance for Equal Rights (\u201cAlliance\u201d) filed this suit against Defendant\n\nSouthwest Airlines Co. (\u201cSouthwest\u201d) in May 2024 seeking injunctive and declaratory relief in\n\nconnection with future application cycles of the \u00a1L\u00e1nzate!/Take Off! Travel Award Program!\n\n(\u201cAward Program\u201d), as well as nominal damages in the amount of $0.01. On December 6, 2024,\n\nthe Court held that the Alliance\u2019s forward-looking claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were\n\nmoot, as Southwest had \u201cunconditionally and irrevocably eliminate[d] the challenged Award\n\nProgram provisions from any and all future program application cycles,\u201d and the Court dismissed\n\nall but the nominal damages claim. (ECF 33 at 5, 10, 13.) The Alliance\u2019s sole remaining claim,\n\ntherefore, is for $0.01 in nominal damages.\n\n        Southwest now moves this Court to enter judgment against it for $0.01 in nominal damages\n\nand to end this litigation without addressing or resolving the merits of the parties\u2019 current dispute.\n\nIn support of this Motion for Entry of Judgment (the \u201cMotion\u201d), Southwest states, as follows:\n\n\n\n\n                                                  1\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01209-D          Document 61        Filed 04/09/25       Page 2 of 8       PageID 819\n\n\n\n           1. Southwest previously moved to dismiss the Alliance\u2019s complaint in its entirety on\n\n               the basis of mootness, as Southwest has unconditionally eliminated the challenged\n\n               Award Program provisions from any future application cycles and had sent the\n\n               Alliance one cent. (ECF 20.)1 The Alliance opposed a finding of mootness with\n\n               respect to its nominal damages claim on the basis that Southwest \u201cresists a\n\n               judgment\u201d on that claim, among other reasons. (ECF 28 at 10.) In the December\n\n               6, 2024 order, this Court held that the Alliance\u2019s forward-looking claims for\n\n               declaratory and injunctive relief were moot, but that the Alliance\u2019s claim for $0.01\n\n               in nominal damages was not moot. (ECF 33 at 5, 10, 13.)\n\n           2. Southwest now moves to accept judgment for $0.01 in nominal damages, without\n\n               an admission of liability and without the Court resolving the merits of the parties\u2019\n\n               current dispute. The Alliance would be a prevailing party for purposes of this\n\n               judgment, thereby permitting the Alliance to seek reasonable fees and costs, in\n\n               accordance with Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992) and its progeny.2\n\n           3. Southwest\u2019s request to accept judgment for $0.01 follows a straightforward path to\n\n               end this litigation, without a finding on the merits of the litigation. As the Brief for\n\n               the United States as Amicus Curiae stated in Uzuegbunam:\n\n                      [W]here the plaintiff has no live claim for prospective relief or compensable\n                      harm, and thus seeks only nominal damages to redress past injury, the\n                      defendant should be able to end the litigation without a resolution of the\n                      constitutional merits, simply by accepting the entry of judgment for nominal\n                      damages against him. . . .\n\n\n\n1\n  In addition to mootness, Southwest also argued that the Alliance lacked associational standing\nto seek nominal damages. (ECF 20 at 10-12.)\n2\n Southwest expressly reserves and does not waive the right to challenge the reasonableness of\nany fees/costs requested.\n                                                  2\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01209-D     Document 61        Filed 04/09/25       Page 3 of 8     PageID 820\n\n\n\n                  Accordingly, the defendant . . . might move for entry of judgment on the\n                  nominal damages claim when no other claims for relief remain. In those\n                  situations, a district court should enter judgment on the basis of defendants\u2019\n                  concession alone, without adjudicating the merits of the constitutional\n                  claim. After all, courts resolve constitutional questions only as a necessary\n                  means to decide an underlying dispute between the parties, not as the\n                  ultimate end itself. . . . [S]o long as plaintiff\u2019s only claim is for nominal\n                  damages and the defendant does not oppose the district court\u2019s summary\n                  entry of that judgment, the court should be able to dispose of the live\n                  controversy between the parties without resolving the underlying merits of\n                  their constitutional dispute.\n\n           Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners, Uzuegbunam\n\n           et. al. v. Preczewski et. al., 592 U.S. 279 (2021) (No. 19-968), 2020 WL 5845980\n\n           (\u201cUnited States Amicus Brief\u201d), at 29-30.\n\n        4. Justice Kavanaugh\u2019s concurrence in Uzuegbunam recognized that this path was\n\n           always available in a case like this one, citing the United States\u2019 Brief for the\n\n           proposition \u201cthat a defendant should be able to accept the entry of a judgment for\n\n           nominal damages against it and thereby end the litigation without a resolution of\n\n           the merits.\u201d Uzuegbunam v. Preczerski, 592 U.S. 279, 293-94 (2021) (Kavanaugh,\n\n           J., concurring).   Other federal circuit court judges have reached the same\n\n           conclusion. See Utah Animal Rts. Coal. v. Salt Lake City Corp., 371 F.3d 1248,\n\n           1273 (10th Cir. 2004) (Henry, J., concurring) (\u201cA defendant could also simply pay\n\n           the nominal damages, thereby mooting the case (and rely on this circuit\u2019s adoption\n\n           of Justice O\u2019Connor\u2019s factors to evaluate attorney fees from Farrar . . . ).\u201d); Amato\n\n           v. City of Saratoga Springs, N.Y., 170 F.3d 311, 323 (2d Cir. 1999) (Jacobs, C.J.,\n\n           concurring) (defendants can \u201callow the district court to enter judgment against\n\n\n\n\n                                             3\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01209-D          Document 61          Filed 04/09/25         Page 4 of 8       PageID 821\n\n\n\n               them, and pay the dollar to the vindicated and happy plaintiff\u201d);3 see also Radha\n\n               Geismann, M.D., P.C. v. ZocDoc, Inc., 909 F.3d 534, 542 (2d Cir. 2018) (\u201c[W]here\n\n               a defendant surrenders to \u2018complete relief\u2019 in satisfaction of a plaintiff's claims, the\n\n               district court may enter default judgment against the defendant\u2014even without the\n\n               plaintiff\u2019s agreement thereto\u2014and \u2018[t]hen, after judgment is entered, the plaintiff\u2019s\n\n               individual claims will become moot for purposes of Article III.\u2019\u201d) (citation\n\n               omitted); Texas v. Yellen, 597 F. Supp. 3d 1005, 1018 (N.D. Tex. 2022) (\u201c[A] claim\n\n               becomes moot when a plaintiff actually receives all of the relief he or she could\n\n               receive on the claim through further litigation.\u201d) (citation omitted), aff\u2019d, 105 F.4th\n\n               755 (5th Cir. 2024).4\n\n           5. This Motion resolves the Alliance\u2019s previous objection that Southwest was\n\n               \u201cresist[ing] judgment\u201d and, therefore, had not obtained mootness in the manner\n\n               contemplated by the United States and Justice Kavanaugh in Uzuegbunam. Cf.\n\n               ECF 28 at 10 (\u201cThe logic is that, once a plaintiff receives a binding judgment from\n\n               a court entitling it to all the relief it requested, it has nothing concrete left to litigate\n\n\n\n3\n  See Transcript of Oral Argument, Uzuegbunam at 20:25-21:9 (Jan. 12, 2021) (Kavanaugh, J.)\n(\u201cJudge Jacobs in the Second Circuit opinion in Amato and Judge Henry in the Tenth Circuit\nopinion in Utah Animal Rights, their separate opinions, both suggested, as the government does\nhere, that there\u2019s not much at stake because a defendant can always surrender to the judgment on\nthe nominal damages claims when no other claims remain, and the district court simply enters\njudgment without adjudicating the merits.\u201d).\n4\n  The fact that judgment is properly entered without reaching the merits is in general accord with\nthe procedure in Rule 68, which allows offers of judgment to disclaim liability, as this Court has\nrecognized. See Barrow v. Greenville Indep. Sch. Dist., 2005 WL 1867292, at *19 (N.D. Tex.\nAug. 5, 2005) (Fitzwater, J.) (\u201cThe court agrees with other courts that hold that Rule 68 does not\nrequire that offers of judgment include admissions of liability\u201d including because \u201crequiring a\nclear admission of liability in every offer of judgment would reduce the effectiveness of Rule 68\nas a tool to encourage the settlement of all lawsuits.\u201d (cleaned up)), aff\u2019d, 2007 WL 3085028 (5th\nCir. Oct. 23, 2007).\n                                                    4\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01209-D          Document 61         Filed 04/09/25     Page 5 of 8      PageID 822\n\n\n\n               about.\u201d). Because the request for $0.01 in nominal damages is all that remains of\n\n               the Alliance\u2019s claims, and because this Motion would render the Alliance a\n\n               prevailing party on that claim, this Motion would leave the parties with \u201cnothing\n\n               concrete left to litigate about.\u201d Cf. id.\n\n           6. This Motion also addresses this Court\u2019s December 2024 conclusion that a\n\n               \u201ctextbook offer to settle\u201d does not render a nominal damages claim moot. ECF 33\n\n               at 12. Although Southwest disputes that its unilateral transfer of one penny was a\n\n               settlement offer, in contrast to such unilateral transfer, Southwest now affirmatively\n\n               seeks a judgment by this Court for nominal damages in the amount of $0.01. Cf.\n\n               ECF 28 at 12 (\u201cWithout a judgment from this Court, Southwest\u2019s mailing was a\n\n               \u2018revocable offer\u2019 to pay the Alliance\u2019s nominal damages.\u201d).5\n\n                                          CONCLUSION\n\n       For the reasons stated above, Southwest respectfully requests that the Court grant this\n\nMotion and enter a judgment in Plaintiff\u2019s favor for $0.01 and reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees.6\n\n\n\n\n5\n For the same reason, the Court\u2019s prior discussion of Chief Roberts\u2019 dissent in Uzuegbunam\n(ECF 33 at 13 n.5) is not probative with respect to this Motion. As the Brief for the United\nStates recognized in Uzuegbunam, a motion seeking entry of judgment for nominal damages is\ncategorically distinct from \u201can unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment\u201d subject to\nCampbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153 (2016). See Brief for United States at 29,\nUzuegbunam 592 U.S. 279 (No. 19-968).\n6\n  Because Southwest is requesting that this Court enter judgment against it for the $0.01,\nSouthwest does not believe that it is necessary to deposit the $0.01 in the Court\u2019s registry\npursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 67. Indeed, if judgment is entered against it,\nSouthwest will pay the $0.01 to the Alliance in accordance with the judgment, or repeat the prior\ntransfer of $0.01 to the Alliance. However, Southwest is willing to make such a deposit if the\nCourt disagrees with Southwest\u2019s position on this issue.\n                                                  5\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01209-D    Document 61     Filed 04/09/25     Page 6 of 8    PageID 823\n\n\n\n                                      Respectfully submitted,\n\n\n Dated: April 9, 2025                  /s/ Tristan Morales\n                                       Tristan Morales (pro hac vice)\n                                       O\u2019MELVENY & MYERS LLP\n                                       1625 Eye St., 10th Floor\n                                       Washington, DC 20006\n                                       (202) 383-5112\n                                       tmorales@omm.com\n\n                                       Kimberly Williams (TX Bar No. 24050592)\n                                       O\u2019MELVENY & MYERS LLP\n                                       2801 North Harwood St., Ste. 1600\n                                       Dallas, TX 75201\n                                       (972) 360-1908\n                                       kwilliams@omm.com\n\n                                       Anton Metlitsky (pro hac vice)\n                                       O\u2019MELVENY & MYERS LLP\n                                       1301 Ave. of the Americas, Ste. 1700\n                                       New York, NY 10019\n                                       (212) 326-2000\n                                       ametlitsky@omm.com\n\n                                       Counsel for Defendant Southwest Airlines Co.\n\n\n\n\n                                        6\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01209-D        Document 61        Filed 04/09/25     Page 7 of 8      PageID 824\n\n\n\n                            CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE\n\n        I hereby certify that on April 9, 2025, I conferred by telephone with Gabe Anderson and\nCam Norris, counsel for Plaintiff American Alliance for Equal Rights, who reported that they\nwill further consider the Alliance\u2019s position after reviewing the filed Motion.\n\n\n\n                                                    /s/ Tristan Morales\n\n                                                    Tristan Morales\n\n\n\n                                                    Counsel for Defendant Southwest Airlines\n                                                    Co.\n\n\n\n\n                                               7\n\fCase 3:24-cv-01209-D         Document 61        Filed 04/09/25      Page 8 of 8      PageID 825\n\n\n\n                                CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n        I hereby certify that on April 9, 2025, the foregoing document was filed with the clerk of\ncourt for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, using the electronic case filing\nsystem of the court. The electronic case filing system sent a \u201cNotice of Electronic Filing\u201d to all\nattorneys of record who have consented in writing to accept this Notice as service of this\ndocument by electronic means.\n\n\n                                                     /s/ Tristan Morales\n                                                     Tristian Morales\n\n                                                     Counsel for Defendant Southwest Airlines\n                                                     Co.\n\n\n\n\n                                                8\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2025-04-09T12:36:54.632570-07:00","document_number":"61","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017604526","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/435884642/","id":435884642,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68547228/61/1/american-alliance-for-equal-rights-v-southwest-airlines-co/","date_created":"2025-04-09T12:36:48.053051-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-09T12:36:48.053072-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":114376,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"61","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"177017604527","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-04-09T12:36:45.106335-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T16:56:04.491995-07:00","date_filed":"2025-04-09","time_filed":null,"entry_number":61,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-04-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":154,"description":"MOTION for Judgment /Motion for Entry of Judgment filed by Southwest Airlines Co with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Morales, Tristan) (Entered: 04/09/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/421871790/","id":421871790,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/435884640/","id":435884640,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68547228/59/american-alliance-for-equal-rights-v-southwest-airlines-co/","date_created":"2025-04-09T12:36:45.061917-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T16:56:04.457085-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"59","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017547071","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-04-09T12:36:45.047427-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T16:56:04.449852-07:00","date_filed":"2025-03-18","time_filed":null,"entry_number":59,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-03-18.002","pacer_sequence_number":149,"description":"Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct Rule 7.1 Briefing Schedule filed by Southwest Airlines Co (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Morales, Tristan) (Entered: 03/18/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/421871789/","id":421871789,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/435884639/","id":435884639,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68547228/58/american-alliance-for-equal-rights-v-southwest-airlines-co/","date_created":"2025-04-09T12:36:45.018938-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T16:56:04.440451-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"58","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-04-09T12:36:44.999915-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T16:56:04.430709-07:00","date_filed":"2025-03-18","time_filed":null,"entry_number":58,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-03-18.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"ELECTRONIC ORDER: Having considered the parties' 55 joint scheduling proposal, the court has decided to defer entering a scheduling order until it rules on plaintiff's 51 motion for summary judgment. (Ordered by Senior Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 3/18/2025) (Senior Judge Sidney A Fitzwater) (Entered: 03/18/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/419666922/","id":419666922,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/433597943/","id":433597943,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68547228/60/american-alliance-for-equal-rights-v-southwest-airlines-co/","date_created":"2025-03-18T14:17:55.145470-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T16:56:04.479187-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"60","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017548199","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion to Amend/Correct","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-03-18T14:17:55.104955-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T16:56:04.469889-07:00","date_filed":"2025-03-18","time_filed":"15:18:42","entry_number":60,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-03-18.003","pacer_sequence_number":151,"description":"ORDER granting 59 Motion to Amend Local Rule 7.1 Briefing Schedule re: 51 Motion for Summary Judgment. Responses due by 4/24/2025. Replies due by 5/15/2025. (Ordered by Senior Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 3/18/2025) (agc) (Entered: 03/18/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/419581370/","id":419581370,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/433510062/","id":433510062,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2025-03-18T07:12:48.573299-07:00","date_modified":"2025-03-18T07:12:48.576317-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-03-18T07:12:48.566213-07:00","date_modified":"2025-03-18T07:12:48.566223-07:00","date_filed":"2025-03-18","time_filed":"08:47:54","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-03-18.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/418883778/","id":418883778,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/432714265/","id":432714265,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68547228/57/american-alliance-for-equal-rights-v-southwest-airlines-co/","date_created":"2025-03-11T07:16:44.258404-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T16:56:04.421699-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"57","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-03-11T07:16:44.244710-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T16:56:04.412381-07:00","date_filed":"2025-03-11","time_filed":null,"entry_number":57,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-03-11.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 56 Defendant Southwest Airlines Co.'s Motion To File Sealed Appendix of Protected Material in Connection With Joint Scheduling Order. Pending further court order, the motion is GRANTED. (Clerk to enter the sealed and/or ex parte document as of the date of this order.) (Ordered by Senior Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 3/11/2025) (Senior Judge Sidney A Fitzwater) (Entered: 03/11/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/418883777/","id":418883777,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/432714264/","id":432714264,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68547228/56/american-alliance-for-equal-rights-v-southwest-airlines-co/","date_created":"2025-03-11T07:16:44.230181-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T16:56:04.403150-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"56","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017526423","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-03-11T07:16:44.216801-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T16:56:04.395741-07:00","date_filed":"2025-03-10","time_filed":null,"entry_number":56,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-03-10.002","pacer_sequence_number":143,"description":"(Document Restricted) Defendant Southwest Airlines Co.'s Motion To File Sealed Appendix of Protected Material in Connection With Joint Scheduling Order (Sealed pursuant to motion to seal) filed by Southwest Airlines Co (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Sealed Appendix) (Morales, Tristan) (Entered: 03/10/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/418883776/","id":418883776,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/432714263/","id":432714263,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68547228/55/american-alliance-for-equal-rights-v-southwest-airlines-co/","date_created":"2025-03-11T07:16:44.199403-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T16:56:04.385474-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"55","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017525829","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-03-11T07:16:44.184259-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T16:56:04.378159-07:00","date_filed":"2025-03-10","time_filed":null,"entry_number":55,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-03-10.001","pacer_sequence_number":141,"description":"Proposal for contents of scheduling and discovery order by American Alliance for Equal Rights. (Norris, Cameron) (Entered: 03/10/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/418883775/","id":418883775,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/432714262/","id":432714262,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68547228/53/american-alliance-for-equal-rights-v-southwest-airlines-co/","date_created":"2025-03-11T07:16:44.167229-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T16:56:04.369305-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"53","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-03-11T07:16:44.151507-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T16:56:04.360527-07:00","date_filed":"2025-03-05","time_filed":null,"entry_number":53,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-03-05.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 52 Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Sealed Appendix filed by American Alliance for Equal Rights. (Clerk to enter the sealed and/or ex parte document as of the date of this order.) (Ordered by Senior Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 3/5/2025) (Senior Judge Sidney A Fitzwater) (Entered: 03/05/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/418883774/","id":418883774,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/432714261/","id":432714261,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68547228/52/american-alliance-for-equal-rights-v-southwest-airlines-co/","date_created":"2025-03-11T07:16:44.130292-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T16:56:04.350795-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"52","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017511494","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-03-11T07:16:44.115343-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T16:56:04.343789-07:00","date_filed":"2025-03-04","time_filed":null,"entry_number":52,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-03-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":134,"description":"(Document Restricted) Sealed Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Sealed Appendix (Sealed pursuant to motion to seal) filed by American Alliance for Equal Rights (Attachments: # 1 Sealed Appendix, # 2 Proposed Order) (Norris, Cameron) (Entered: 03/04/2025)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/418883773/","id":418883773,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68547228/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/432714260/","id":432714260,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68547228/51/american-alliance-for-equal-rights-v-southwest-airlines-co/","date_created":"2025-03-11T07:16:44.095277-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T16:56:04.333684-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"51","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"177017507900","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2025-03-11T07:16:44.074924-07:00","date_modified":"2025-04-24T16:56:04.326184-07:00","date_filed":"2025-03-03","time_filed":null,"entry_number":51,"recap_sequence_number":"2025-03-03.001","pacer_sequence_number":132,"description":"MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by American Alliance for Equal Rights (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support, # 2 Declaration of Richard Gabriel Anderson, # 3 Appendix, # 4 Proposed Order) (Norris, Cameron) (Entered: 03/03/2025)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=68547228&page_size=40"}