Case 1:18-cv-11432-DPW Document 1-1 Filed 07/10/18 Page 1 of 14

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
THE TRIAL COURT

MIDDLESEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT

_
)
T. FORCHT DAGI, M.D. )
)
Plaintiff )
) JURY DEMAND
V. )
) CIVIL ACTION NO.
DELTA AIRLINES, INC.

Defendant

COMPLAINT

I. 1. This is an action in tort for the unlawful imprisonment of the Plaintiff,

T. Forcht Dagi, M.D., by the Defendant, Delta Airlines, Inc.

II. The Parties

2. The Plaintiff T. Forcht Dagi, M.D. is a neurosurgeon. He is a citizen and resident

of Massachusetts residing at 423 Commonwealth Avenue, Newton, Massachusetts 02459.

3. The Defendant Delta Airlines, Inc. ("Delta") is a Delaware corporation with its

principal place of business at 1030 Delta Boulevard, Atlanta, Georgia 30320-6001.

III. Jurisdiction and Venue

4. This Honorable Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant pursuant to the

Massachusetts long-arm statute, G.L. c. 223A, Section 3(a), since this cause of action in

tort arises from the Defendant "transacting any business in this Commonwealth"; further,

there is personal jurisdiction over the Defendant under Section 3(b) since it contracted to

enable the Plaintiff to embark in Boston as a passenger to London, England.

 Case 1:18-cv-11432-DPW Document 1-1 Filed 07/10/18 Page 2 of 14

5. Delta has a major physical business presence in Massachusetts. Terminal A at

Logan Airport was built for Delta's sole use. Presently, Delta leases 17 of the 22 gates at

said terminal, and has recently opened a second Sky Club.

6. Furthermore, Delta solicits passenger travel on its airline by means of extensive

advertising in Massachusetts by the use of many methods and media, including, without

limitation, frequent advertising by email sent to Plaintiff's email address.

7. The Plaintiff's frequent travel on Delta, including his having been a passenger on

Delta flight 63, from Logan Airport to London, on March 30, 2015 (the "Flight"), was a

direct result of Delta's advertising in Massachusetts, including that directed at him by

email, and also a result of what was afforded the Plaintiff at Logan, including convenient

Delta flight departure schedules and access to the Sky Club.

As is alleged and pleaded below, the Plaintiff's wrongful imprisonment inside the

airport terminal in London was the result of the instruction of a Delta employee on the

Flight to Delta personnel on the ground, prior to Plaintiff's disembarkation.

9. This could not have occurred if the Plaintiff had not been a passenger on the

Flight, which in turn, resulted from Delta's transaction of business, and contracting to

supply services, in Massachusetts.

10. By reason of the aforesaid, this cause of action arises from, and is directly and

proximately related to, Delta's transacting business, and contracting to supply services, in

this Commonwealth.

11. Venue is proper since the Plaintiff resides in the County of Middlesex.

IV. The Delta Flight

2
 Case 1:18-cv-11432-DPW Document 1-1 Filed 07/10/18 Page 3 of 14

12. The Plaintiff was a passenger on Delta Flight 63, which departed from Logan

Airport in Boston, approximately as scheduled at 7:00 p.m. on March 30, 2015, and

arrived slightly before the scheduled time of 7:05 a.m. on March 31, 2015 at London

Heathrow Airport. The aircraft on which the Plaintiff traveled is hereinafter referred to

as the "Aircraft."

V. The Events on Board the Aircraft

13. As the Aircraft was commencing its descent to London airport, a loudspeaker

announcement stated that a flight attendant had lost, misplaced, or was missing his

pouch/bag. Shortly thereafter, a flight attendant walked by and asked whether any of the

passengers had seen the pouch or bag.

14. Shortly thereafter another flight attendant (the "Attendant") approached the seated

Plaintiff in a threatening fashion and loudly accused him of having "stolen" his "bag" or

"kit bag" (hereinafter the "Bag"), which, of course, the Plaintiff denied. The Attendant

did not say that he had seen the Plaintiff steal the bag, but merely voiced his suspicion.

15. The only reasons for the Attendant's suspicion that he articulated was that (a) he

had earlier in the flight seen the Plaintiff walking in the vicinity of one of the galleys

(which is also in the vicinity of the toilets), and, (b) that he had allegedly seen his Bag in

the Plaintiff's open carry on luggage.

16. However, the Attendant did not explain why he had not demanded the return of

his property at the time he had allegedly seen it previously in Plaintiff's luggage, why he

had not reported it at that time to the purser or to an officer of the aircraft, nor did he

explain why he instead initiated a loudspeaker announcement and an aircraft cabin wide

search instead.
 Case 1:18-cv-11432-DPW Document 1-1 Filed 07/10/18 Page 4 of 14

17. Thereafter, in a threatening manner, the Attendant demanded to search Plaintiff's

carry on luggage, to which the Plaintiff, under duress, agreed.

18. The Attendant did not involve the purser or any of the Aircraft's officers in his

confrontation with the Plaintiff.

19. The Attendant searched Plaintiff's luggage carefully, but did not say that he had

found anything suspicious, nor did he involve the purser or any of the Aircraft's officers

in said search.

20. Subsequently, before landing, the Attendant's Bag was found elsewhere in the

Aircraft by another flight attendant.

21. Thereupon, the Attendant loudly accused the Plaintiff of "probably" having

"thrown" the Bag to that location, even though he had not seen Plaintiff do so, and even

though no passengers said they had seen that.

22. In fact, neither the Attendant nor other attendants, nor the purser, nor any Aircraft

officer questioned the seated passengers in the vicinity of the Plaintiff and in the vicinity

of the location of the found Bag as to whether anyone had seen the Plaintiff throw

anything.

23. During this entire episode, the Plaintiff, who was shocked by this false,

unjustified, and defamatory accusation, repeatedly and emphatically denied that he had

anything to do with the Attendant's Bag, and that he had any knowledge about it.

24. Once the Aircraft landed, the Attendant prevented the Plaintiff from leaving the

Aircraft before the other passengers had done so.

VI. The Events on the Mobile Jetway Connecting the Aircraft to the Terminal

m
 Case 1:18-cv-11432-DPW Document 1-1 Filed 07/10/18 Page 5 of 14

25. Thereafter, as both the Attendant and the Plaintiff were standing on the mobile

section of the jetway connecting the Aircraft to the terminal (the "Jetway"), they were

approached by a uniformed Delta ground employee (the "Delta Ground Employee")

26. Then, prior to the Plaintiff having disembarked from the Jetway, the Attendant

ordered the Plaintiff to "not go anywhere."

27. On the Jetway, the Attendant told the Delta Ground Employee in a loud voice that

the Plaintiff had stolen his Bag, and that he, the Attendant, knew this even though the

Plaintiff would deny it, which the Plaintiff did.

28. The Attendant did not tell the Delta Ground Employee that his Bag had been

found elsewhere on the Aircraft by another flight attendant.

29. The Attendant on the Jetway directed the Delta Ground Employee to detain the

Plaintiff and to turn him over to the "authorities."

30. Neither the Attendant nor the Delta Ground Employee had the legal authority to

make a private citizen's arrest of the Plaintiff on the Jetway.

31. Further, the Attendant had no legal authority to direct the Delta Ground Employee

to take the Plaintiff into custody on the Jetway, or to have him detained once he was in

the terminal.

32. Further, the Delta Ground Employee had no legal authority to detain the Plaintiff

once he had disembarked and was inside the terminal.

33. Thereafter the Attendant (without legal authority) ordered the Plaintiff to

surrender his passport to Delta Ground Employee No. 1; the Plaintiff complied under

duress. The passport was returned in due course.

5
 Case 1:18-cv-11432-DPW Document 1-1 Filed 07/10/18 Page 6 of 14

34. At this point, the Plaintiff, since he ivas being detained without cause against his

will, demanded that the police be called immediately. He was not told that the police had

been called or where he could expect them. He received no answer.

35. The Attendant refused to remain in order to be interviewed by the police; instead,

he said he was "taking the bus to his hotel."

VII. The Events in the London Heathrow Airport Terminal

36. The Attendant had transferred custody of the Plaintiff to Delta Ground Employee,

who ordered the Plaintiff to follow her away off the Jetway to another location in the

terminal to wait "until the police arrived." Other than that order, she refused to speak to

the Plaintiff while in her custody.

37. Thereupon, the Plaintiff was marched, under duress, to another location in the

terminal (the "Second Location"). This involved a walk of ten to fifteen minutes duration

to a distance of approximately four hundred yards from the Aircraft and Jetway.

38. The Plaintiff, who is older, had at that time not fully recovered from leg surgery.

He was forced to carry and move his two pieces of carry on luggage with no help.

Accordingly, he was callously and unnecessarily subjected by Delta to significant pain

and discomfort, exhaustion, and dangerous stress.

39. It was readily apparent that the Plaintiff was limping in pain and was labored in

walking and moving luggage.

40. The Plaintiff, at the Second Location, was kept standing and was not afforded an

opportunity to sit down.

G'7
 Case 1:18-cv-11432-DPW Document 1-1 Filed 07/10/18 Page 7 of 14

41. After being detained at the Second Location for approximately fifteen minutes,

the Plaintiff, without receiving any explanation, was marched, under duress, for ten to

fifteen minutes, limping all the way back to the terminal in the vicinity of the Aircraft.

42. In so doing, he was again subjected, callously and unnecessarily, to the same

physical pain and discomfort, fatigue, and dangerous stress, exacerbated and more serious

by its repetition.

43. Again, it was readily apparent that the Plaintiff was limping in pain, and was

labored in carrying and moving luggage.

44. Upon arriving back at the vicinity of the Aircraft, Delta Ground Employee turned

over custody of the Plaintiff to a Delta employee identified as a"Delta supervisor"

(hereinafter "the Delta Supervisor").

45. At this time, the Plaintiff again denied the accusations against him, and demanded

to either be released or to speak to the police. In response, he was told that he was not

allowed to leave.

46. The Plaintiff, once again, was kept standing and was not afforded an opportunity

to sit down while waiting.

47. Thereafter, in the terminal near the Aircraft, the Delta Supervisor detained the

Plaintiff for a considerable amount of time, and held several telephone conversations.

48. After a considerable amount of time, the Delta Supervisor received a phone call,

and was apparently told to hand the phone to the Plaintiff.

49. The caller was a British police officer, who, after interviewing the Plaintiff, told

the Plaintiff he was free to go and ordered his immediate release.

7
 Case 1:18-cv-11432-DPW Document 1-1 Filed 07/10/18 Page 8 of 14

50. Further, the British police officer gave the Plaintiff a case number reference and

told him that he should think about "filing a complaint with Delta."

51. The Plaintiff thereafter departed by passing through British immigration and

customs, which are not a function of Delta Airlines.

52. Since the Plaintiff had no checked luggage, he did not have to go to the luggage

claim facility, and he had no need of further dealings with Delta Airlines.

53. During the entire duration of time in which the Plaintiff was confined and falsely

imprisoned by the Attendant, by the Delta Ground Employee and by the Delta

Supervisor, the Plaintiff believed that they had the legal authority to detain him and to

physically restrain him if he attempted to leave.

54. The duration of the Plaintiff's detention by Delta in the terminal was at least one

hour, and he was forced to walk a total of about eight hundred yards in pain, physical

stress, humiliation and extreme anxiety.

VIII. Delta's Confinement of the Plaintiff was Unlawful

55. The events alleged and set forth above in this Complaint constitute the Plaintiff's

false arrest by, and wrongful imprisonment by, the Defendant Delta Airlines.

56. Under the laws of Great Britain, where the tort occurred, and of the Commonwealth

of Massachusetts, Delta's actions constituted false imprisonment of the Plaintiff, since he

was detained against his will with no lawful authority to justify the detention.

57. . Further, the Plaintiff was conscious of his confinement, which was intentional and

unjustified on the part of Delta, and the Plaintiff was harmed thereby.
 Case 1:18-cv-11432-DPW Document 1-1 Filed 07/10/18 Page 9 of 14

58. Under British law, Delta's imprisonment of the Plaintiff is actionable per se. It is

presumed to be unlawful, and the burden is upon the Defendant to prove that it was lawful,

which the Defendant cannot do for (without limitation) the following reasons.

59. Without limitation, the imprisonment by Delta was unlawful because once the

Plaintiff denied the accusation, once his luggage was thoroughly searched, and once the

Attendant's Bag was found elsewhere on the Aircraft, there was no reasonable

basis/grounds for the continued (and initially baseless) accusation against the Plaintiff and

his ordered detention once he had disembarked.

60. Further, under British law, a private citizen's arrest and the ensuing detention by

him of the suspect can only be lawful if a suspected indictable offense is involved, and the

arresting private person is liable if that is not the case.

61. Further, under British law, the arrest by a private citizen is unlawful, regardless of

the grounds for his suspicion that an indictable offense has been conunitted, if in fact the

offense has not been committed; the private citizen making such arrest acts at his own peril,

in contrast to an arrest made by an officer of the law.

62. Accordingly, the continued detention of the Plaintiff in the terminal was inherently

unlawful regardless of the duration involved.

63. Moreover, if, arguendo, there had been reasonable grounds for the accusation at this

point in time, the detention was unlawful because it was not for a reasonable time, and it

was not conducted in a reasonable manner.

64. The duration of the Plaintiff's detention was unreasonable and unlawful because

Delta did not surrender custody of the Plaintiff to a British police officer as soon as feasible

or practicable.

9
 Case 1:18-cv-11432-DPW Document 1-1 Filed 07/10/18 Page 10 of 14

65. These events occurred at a major international airport, with a continuing and

pervasive law enforcement presence. Accordingly, if Delta had truly believed that it had

reasonable grounds for this detention, it could have turned over custody of the Plaintiff to a

British police officer almost immediately after Plaintiff was off the Aircraft.

66. By failing to do so, Delta caused unnecessary, impermissible, very lengthy delay in

the Plaintiff's release which was mandated by the British police.

67. Delta's detention of the Plaintiff was not conducted in a reasonable manner; rather,

as is pleaded above, Delta callously and unnecessarily subjected the Plaintiff to

humiliation, anxiety, physical pain, and dangerous physical stress.

68. Furthermore, as is alleged above, the accusing Attendant did not deign to remain on

the scene to speak to the police, but instead absconded to his hotel.

69. This created a situation where the only Delta employee on the scene who would

make the futile attempt to justify this detention to the police had only spoken, inadequate,

third-hand information about the events on board the Aircraft.

70. The detention of the Plaintiff was thereby rendered unlawful, since Delta had

ensured that once the police had the opportunity to interview the Plaintiff, his release would

be as expeditious as it was inevitable.

10
 Case 1:18-cv-11432-DPW Document 1-1 Filed 07/10/18 Page 11 of 14

71. The detention of the Plaintiff by Delta became actionable under British and

Massachusetts law once he had disembarked by having reached the safety of the terminal,

especially once he was removed to a location in the terminal hundreds of yards from the

vicinity of the Aircraft and Jetway.

IX. Damages

72. The Plaintiff is entitled to the damages caused by his unlawful imprisonment by

Delta.

73. The Plaintiff was subjected to considerable physical pain while confined by Delta.

74. As a result of the unlawful imprisonment, the Plaintiff suffered, and continues to

suffer, anxiety episodes and emotional distress during and subsequent to his

imprisonment by Delta.

75. The Plaintiff suffered, and continues to suffer from nightmares triggered by, and

featuring, the events while unlawfully imprisoned.

76. The Plaintiff is obliged to frequently travel by air. As a result of Delta's

confinement of him, he has anxiety episodes prior to traveling by air, and is in a state of

anxiety and tension while traveling, which also hinders his ability to work and write well

during travel.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Dr. T. Forcht Dagi, M.D., demands that judgment be

entered against the Defendant, Delta Airlines, in an amount to be determined by a jury,

together with interest and costs.

THE PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY ON HIS CAUSE OF

T. FORCHT DAGI, M.D.,

Plaintiff

11
 Case 1:18-cv-11432-DPW Document 1-1 Filed 07/10/18 Page 12 of 14

By his attomey,

Dated: March 28, 2018
HEN . HERRI(4ANN
Attorney for Plaintiff
BBO No. 232120
205 Worcester Court, Suite A-2
Falmouth, Massachusetts 02540-3920
(617) 423-6096
hherrmann@socialaw.com

12
 Case 1:18-cv-11432-DPW Document 1-1 Filed 07/10/18 Page 13 of 14

Commonwealth of Massachusetts

MIDDLESEX,SS. TRIAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH

SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
CIVIL DOCKET N0. 8 VlaO ol

7: ~'D~c ~r ~A~f ~t ~. , PLAINTIFFS(~),

V.

D6LrA AIRGI~~J,.~~L. , DEFENDANT(g)

SUMMONS

THIS SUMMONS IS DIRECTED TO DELrA A/A 4W4S~ -zNe. (Defendant's name) .

You are being sued. The Plaintiff(A named above has started a lawsuit against you. A copy of the
Plaintiffs Complaint frled against you is attached to this summons and the original complaint has been
filed in the ti 1 IlOLE) C~ Vl'Ol((Okourt. YOU MUST ACT PROMPTLY TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS.

You must respond to this lawsuit in writing within 20 days. If you do not respond, the court may decide
the case against you and award the Plaintiff everything asked for in the complaint. You will also lose the
opportunity to tell your side of the story. You must respond to this lawsuit in writing even if you expect
to resolve this matter with the Plaintiff. If you need more time to respond, you may request an
extension of time in writing from the Court.
2. How to Respond. To respond to this lawsuit, you must frle a written response with the court and mail a
copy to the Plaintiff's Attorney (or the Plaintiff, if unrepresented). You can do this by: <~ d1t1'l'yJt/N FR IO(Z.
a. Filing your signed original response with the Clerk's Office for Civil Business, fi I P Q IUtu6ourt,
alwrILAp LJ!1✓~~dress), by mail or in person, AND
Wb?~e r errfig b~mar~li g alcopy of your response to the Plaintiff's Attorney/Plaintiff at the following
address: 81:60N698-MtE 1J,N,e~ 7 205 WOlZG~
a What to include in your response. An "Answer" is one type of response to a Comptaint. YourAnswer o a.rj 4~4 ©
must state whether, you agree or disagree with the fact(s) alleged in each.paragraph of the Complaint.
Some defenses, called affirmative defenses, must be stated in your Answer or you may lose your right to
use them in court. If you have any claims against the Plaintiff (referred to as counterclaims) that are
based on the same facts or transaction described in the Complaint, then you must include those claims
in your Answer. Otherwise, you may lose your right to sue the Plaintiff about anything related to this
lawsuit. If you want to have your case heard by a jury, you must specifically request a jury trial in your
Answer or in a written demand for a jury trial that you must send to the other side and file with the
court no more than 10 days after sending your Answer. You can also respond to a Complaint by filing a
"Motion to Dismiss," if you believe that the complaint in legally invalid or legally insufficient. A Motion
to Dismiss must be based on one of the legal deficiencies or reasons listed under Mass. R. Civ. P. 12. If
you are frling a Motion to Dismiss, you must also comply with the filing procedures for "Civil Motions"
described in the rules of the Court in which the complaint was filed, available at
www.mass.gov.courts/case-legal-res/rules of court.
~*P
A true copY Afitest:
OePutt, Sil erilf SuffCfc I~:nur-p
 Case 1:18-cv-11432-DPW Document 1-1 Filed 07/10/18 Page 14 of 14

4. Legal Assistance. You may wish to get legal help from a lawyer. If you cannot get legal help, some basic
information for people who represent themselves is available at www.mass.gov/courts/selfhelp.
5. Required information on all filings: The "civil docket number" appearing at the top of this notice is the
case number assigned to this case and must appear on the front of your Answer or Motion to Dismiss.
You should refer to yourself as the "Defendant."

Witness Hon. Judith Fabricant, Chief Justice on ~ 20 -4.

~ .... /(rr ~
._ ...................._..._..................._......................_.._.............. _........................
..............
Mic el A. S ivan

Note: The number assigned to the Complaint by the Clerk-Magistrate at the beginning of the lawsuit should be indicated on the
summons before it is served on the Defendant.

PROOF OF SERVICE OF PROCESS

1 hereby certify that on , 20— , 1 served a copy of this summons,

together with a copy of the complaint in this action, on the defendant named in tliis summons, in the
following manner (See Mass. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1-5)):

Dated: 20 Signature:

N.B. TO PROCESS SERVER:

PLEASE ENTER THE DATE THAT YOU MADE SERVICE ON THE DEFENDANT IN THIS BOX - BOTH
ON THE ORIGINAL SUMMONS AND ON THE COPY OF THE SUMMONS SERVED ON THE DEFENDANT.

,20