Bowling Green v. Martin Land Development Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 01 April 2009
• Docket Number: No. 08-5353.,08-5353.
• Citation: 561 F.3d 556
• Parties: BOWLING GREEN and Warren County Airport Board, and Geoff Fields, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MARTIN LAND DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., and Co-Mar Aviation, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

561 F.3d 556

BOWLING GREEN and Warren County Airport Board, and Geoff Fields, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MARTIN LAND DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., and Co-Mar Aviation, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 08-5353.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued: March 13, 2009.

Decided and Filed: April 1, 2009.

ARGUED: Christopher Todd Davenport, Broderick & Associates, Bowling Green, Kentucky, for Appellants. Timothy L. Mauldin, Bell, Orr, Ayers & Moore, Bowling Green, Kentucky, for Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Christopher Todd Davenport, David F. Broderick, Broderick & Associates, Bowling Green, Kentucky, for Appellants. Timothy L. Mauldin, William T. Wade, Jr., Bell, Orr, Ayers & Moore, Bowling Green, Kentucky, for Appellees.

Before: BATCHELDER and CLAY, Circuit Judges; COX, District Judge.^*

OPINION

CLAY, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs, the Bowling Green and Warren County Airport Board ("Airport Board") and Geoff Fields ("Fields"), appeal from the district court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants, Martin Land Development Company, Inc. ("Martin") and Co-Mar Aviation, Inc. ("Co-Mar"). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on the ground that 49 U.S.C. § 40103 does not imply a private right of action. Although other circuits have addressed the issue, this is a matter of first impression for this Court. For the reasons set forth herein, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

I.

In December 1998, the Airport Board entered into a Lease Agreement with Martin and a related Contract for Fixed Base Operations ("FBO") with Co-Mar Aviation. A conflict subsequently arose between Defendants and the Airport Board concerning the nature and extent of the Lease Agreement. Specifically, the parties disagreed as to whether the lease entitled Defendants to claim an exclusive leasehold interest in certain ramp and apron space for aircraft parking. Disputing Defendants' reading of the lease, the Airport Board directed Defendants to cease and desist their efforts to charge ramp fees for the disputed areas. Defendants responded by filing a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky seeking recognition of their exclusive leasehold interest in those areas of the airport.

Defendants' complaint alleged the existence of several issues of federal law, including issues under 49 U.S.C. § 40103. Arguing that the claims involved nothing more than a dispute over the terms of the lease, the Airport Board moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Defendants asserted that the claims under § 40103 conferred federal question jurisdiction in the district court Agreeing with the Airport Board's position, the district court dismissed the action.

Martin Land and Co-Mar then turned to the Kentucky state courts seeking recognition that the Lease Agreement granted them exclusive use of the disputed areas of the airport. On July 7, 2003, after extensive discovery and a bench trial, the state trial court entered judgment in favor of the Airport Board, concluding that the premises leased to Martin "consist solely of the FBO building, the landscaped grounds and walkways surrounding the exterior of the FBO building, and the canopy and ramp space beneath the canopy." (J.A. 115.) The trial court thus rejected Defendant's claim of exclusive use of the ramp and apron adjacent to the FBO building.

On appeal, the Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Lease Agreement plainly and unambiguously granted Defendants an exclusive leasehold interest in the disputed ramp and apron areas. The Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the trial court for determination of the dimensions of the leasehold area, the amount of compensatory damages, and whether Defendants were entitled to attorneys' fees.

Following entry of the Court of Appeals' judgment, the Airport Board moved the Supreme Court of Kentucky for discretionary review. That court denied review. Following the denial of review, the decision of the Court of Appeals became final and the matter moved back to the trial court for resolution of the remand issues. The Airport Board then moved for resolution of the "issues of federal law" that the Airport Board contends were not resolved by the Court of Appeals' decision, including whether 49 U.S.C. § 40103 precluded granting exclusive use of the disputed areas to Defendants. The trial court denied the Airport Board's motion, effectively declining to address that issue.

On January 24, 2007, the Airport Board and Fields, a pilot who uses the airport, filed the instant action in federal district court seeking resolution of those outstanding federal issues, alleging, among other things, that Defendant's exclusive use claim violates 49 U.S.C. § 40103(e). On March 13, 2007, Martin and Co-Mar filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. On November 29, 2007, after briefing and argument, the district court entered judgment in favor of Defendants, concluding that 49 U.S.C. § 40103 does not provide a private right of action. In reaching that conclusion, the district court was persuaded by the "overwhelming authority" from other circuits holding that § 40103 does not provide an implied private cause of action. Bowling Green & Warren County Airport Bd. v. Martin Land Dev. Co., Inc., No. 1:07cv18-M, 2007 WL 4234136, at *4, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87885, at *6-7 (W.D.Ky. Nov. 29, 2007).

After the district court denied the Airport Board's motion for reconsideration, this timely appeal followed.

II.

Generally, this Court reviews a district court's decision granting summary judgment de novo, using the same Rule 56(c) standard as the district court. See White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 533 F.3d 381, 389 (6th Cir.2008). Because the district court's decision turned on its interpretation of a federal statute, however, this Court reviews that question of law de novo. See United States v. Spinelle, 41 F.3d 1056, 1057 (6th Cir.1994) (citing United States v. Brown, 915 F.2d 219, 223 (6th Cir.1990) ("A district court engages in statutory construction as a matter of law, and we review its conclusions de novo.")).

III.

In relevant part, 49 U.S.C. § 40103 precludes "exclusive rights" at certain airport facilities, stating: "A person does not have an exclusive right to use an air navigation facility on which Government money has been expended." 49 U.S.C. § 40103(e). The language of § 40103(e) does not explicitly provide for a private cause of action, nor does any other provision of the statute. Thus, the only basis for asserting a claim under that provision would be that the statute implies a private right of action.

In Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975), the Supreme Court set forth four factors that "are relevant" in "determining whether a private remedy is implicit in a statute not expressly providing one." Id. at 78, 95 S.Ct. 2080. According to Cort, courts must consider:

First, is the plaintiff "one of the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted" ... —that is, does the statute create a federal right in favor of the plaintiff? Second, is there any indication of legislative intent, explicit or implicit, either to create such a remedy or to deny one? ... Third, is it consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme to imply such a remedy for the plaintiff? ... And finally, is the cause of action one traditionally relegated to state law, in an area basically the concern of the States, so that it would be inappropriate to infer a cause of action based solely on federal law?

Id. at 78, 95 S.Ct. 2080 (citations omitted). As the Court subsequently explained, however, the factors enumerated in Cort do not demand equal consideration. Rather, "[t]he central inquiry remains whether Congress intended to create, either expressly or by implication, a private cause of action." Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U.S. 560, 575, 99 S.Ct. 2479, 61 L.Ed.2d 82 (1979). Indeed, since the issuance of Cort, "the Supreme Court has refined this inquiry [to clarify that] the focal point is whether Congress, expressly or by implication, intended to create a private cause of action." Parry v. Mohawk Motors of Mich., Inc., 236 F.3d 299, 308 (6th Cir.2000) (citing Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U.S. 11, 15-16, 100 S.Ct. 242, 62 L.Ed.2d 146 (1979), and Touche Ross, 442 U.S. at 575, 99 S.Ct. 2479); see also Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 283, 122 S.Ct. 2268, 153 L.Ed.2d 309 (2002) (noting that courts "must first determine whether Congress intended to create a federal right" (emphasis in original)).

In other words, although Cort "articulated a four-part test to determine whether an implied right of action exists in a federal statute," Parry, 236 F.3d at 308, subsequent decisions have made clear that congressional intent is the "determinative factor." Thompson v. Thompson, 484 U.S. 174, 189, 108 S.Ct. 513, 98 L.Ed.2d 512 (1988) (Scalia, J., concurring) ("We effectively overruled the Cort v. Ash analysis in Touche Ross ... and Transamerica ..., converting one of its four factors (congressional intent) into the determinative factor."). The remaining three Cort factors "are relevant [only] insofar as they assist in determining congressional intent." Parry, 236 F.3d at 308; accord Local 3-689, Oil, Chem. & Atomic Int'l Union v. Martin Marietta Energy Sys. Inc., 77 F.3d 131, 134 (6th Cir.1996) ("The Cort factors are simply tools to divine the intent of Congress in the event of statutory silence."). Accordingly, absent congressional intent to create a private remedy, "a cause of action does not exist and courts may not create one, no matter how desirable that might be as a policy matter, or how compatible with the statute." Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 287-88, 121 S.Ct. 1511, 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (2001).

IV.

Although this appeal presents a matter of first impression in this...