Friends of the E. Hampton Airport, Inc. v. Town of E. Hampton

• Decision Date: 26 June 2015
• Docket Number: No. 15–CV–2246(JS)(ARL).,15–CV–2246(JS)(ARL).
• Citation: 152 F.Supp.3d 90
• Parties: FRIENDS OF THE EAST HAMPTON AIRPORT, INC.; Analar Corporation; Associated Aircraft Group, Inc.; Eleventh Street Aviation, LLC; Helicopter Association International, Inc.; Heliflite Shares, LLC; Liberty Helicopters, Inc.; Sound Aircraft Services, Inc. ; and National Business Aviation Association, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. The TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

152 F.Supp.3d 90

FRIENDS OF THE EAST HAMPTON AIRPORT, INC.; Analar Corporation; Associated Aircraft Group, Inc.; Eleventh Street Aviation, LLC; Helicopter Association International, Inc.; Heliflite Shares, LLC; Liberty Helicopters, Inc.; Sound Aircraft Services, Inc. ; and National Business Aviation Association, Inc., Plaintiffs,

v.The TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON, Defendant.

No. 15–CV–2246(JS)(ARL).

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

Signed June 26, 2015.

Matthew Gage Coogan, Esq., Jonathan Daniel Lamberti, Esq., Michael Dayton Longyear, Esq., Lisa R. Zornberg, Esq., Lankler Siffert & Wohl LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Peter Kirsch, Esq., William E. Pilsk, Esq., Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell, Denver, CO, Eric Bregman, Esq., Farrell Fritz PC, Water Mill, NY, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

SEYBERT

, District Judge:

Plaintiffs, a group of airport users and aviation companies that frequently use the East Hampton Airport, bring this action against the Town of East Hampton, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining enforcement of Sections 75–38 and 75–39 of the Town of East Hampton Code, recently adopted town laws that impose access restrictions to the East Hampton Airport (the “Town Laws”). Plaintiffs argue that the Town Laws are invalid because: (1) they are preempted by federal statutes governing aviation and therefore violate the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2

; and (2) they constitute an unlawful restraint on interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3.

Presently before the Court are: (1) Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the Town Laws pending resolution of this action and a related action against the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”), Friends of the East Hampton Airport, Inc., et al. v. F.A.A., et al., No. 15–CV–0441 (E.D.N.Y.) (the “FAA Action”), (Docket Entry 19); and (2) Plaintiffs' letter motion to consolidate this action and the FAA Action for all purposes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42

, (Docket Entry 14). For the following reasons, Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and the Court RESERVES JUDGMENT on Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate pending the filing of the FAA's response to the Complaint in the FAA Action.

BACKGROUND¹

I. The Parties

Plaintiffs represent a wide spectrum of airport users and aviation companies that frequently use the East Hampton Airport (the “Airport”). Plaintiff Friends of the East Hampton Airport, Inc. (“FOEHA”) is a nonprofit corporation that “represents the interests of those who seek to keep the Airport open to all types, kinds, and classes of aircraft activities and flying services.” (Compl. ¶ 12.) Plaintiffs Analar Corporation (“Analar”), Associated Aircraft Group, Inc. (“AAG”), HeliFlite Shares LLC (“HeliFlite”), and Liberty Helicopters, Inc. (“Liberty”) are air carriers that are federally authorized to provide helicopter charter services to clients throughout the East Coast. (Compl. ¶¶ 13–14, 17–18.) In addition to providing charter services, AAG and HeliFlite manage “fractional aircraft ownership program[s],” which involve selling partial ownership or leasehold interests of a helicopter to private individuals who wish to operate their own helicopter using AAG and HeliFlite as managers. (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 17.) Plaintiff Eleventh Street Aviation LLC (“Eleventh Street”) is an air carrier that is federally authorized to operate aircraft for private use. (Compl. ¶ 15.) Plaintiff Helicopter Association International, Inc. (“HAI”) is a Delaware “trade association that represents and serves the interests of helicopter operators around the world.” (Compl. ¶ 16.) According to the Complaint, HAI's “members include one or more providers of helicopter services” at the Airport. (Compl. ¶ 16.) Plaintiff Sound Aircraft Services, Inc. (“Sound”) is a fixed-base operator at the Airport. (Compl. ¶ 19.) Sound leases property at the Airport from the Town of East Hampton and provides fuel and other on-site services to aircraft and passengers that use the Airport. (Compl. ¶ 19.)

Defendant the Town of East Hampton (the “Town”) is the easternmost town on Long Island, New York, situated approximately 100 miles east of New York City. It is a popular seaside resort community during the summer. The Town owns and operates the Airport, a public-use airport located in the Town.

II. The Town Laws

For years, Town residents have opposed development of the Airport and have complained about aircraft noise. (See Cantwell Decl., Docket Entry 38–1, ¶¶ 8–10.) In recent years, the complaints have escalated due to a marked increase in helicopter operations at the Airport, many of which are private charter flights taken by individuals traveling from New York City to the East End of Long Island.² (See Cantwell Decl. ¶ 11; MacNiven Decl., Docket Entry 38–4; Saltoun Decl., Docket Entry 38–5.) To alleviate this perceived noise problem, on April 16, 2015, the Town adopted Sections 75–38 and 75–39 of the Town of East Hampton Code, local laws imposing three access restrictions to the Airport. See Town of E. Hampton Res. 2015–411, 2015–412, 2015–413, to be codified at Town of E. Hampton Code §§ 75–38, 75–39.³ The access restrictions are as follows: (1) a mandatory curfew prohibiting all aircraft from using the Airport between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. (the “Mandatory Curfew”); (2) an extended curfew prohibiting “Noisy Aircraft” from using the Airport from 8:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. (the “Extended Curfew”); and (3) a weekly limit prohibiting “Noisy Aircraft” from using the Airport⁴ more than two times per week during the “Season”—i.e., the months of May, June, July, August, and September⁵ (the “One–Trip Limit”). See Town of E. Hampton Code § 75–38(B)–(C).

“Noisy Aircraft” is defined as “any airplane or rotorcraft for which there is a published Effective Perceived Noise in Decibels (EPNdb) approach (AP) level of 91.0 or greater.” Town of E. Hampton Code § 75–38(A)(4)(a).

Violations of the Town Laws are deemed criminal offenses punishable by a sliding scale of monetary fines for the first three violations—$1,000; $4,000; and $10,000, respectively—and prohibition from the Airport for a period of up to two years for a fourth violation. See Town of E. Hampton Code § 75–39(B). Under the Town Laws, the Town may also seek court injunctions, restraining orders, and monetary fines against any person or entity with an ownership interest in a violating aircraft. See Town of E. Hampton Code § 75–39(E).

Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the Town Laws on the ground that they violate, and are therefore preempted by: (1) the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (“AAIA”), 49 U.S.C. § 47101 et seq.,

which governs the process through which airport proprietors can obtain federal funding for the planning and development of public-use airports; and (2) the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (“ANCA”), 49 U.S.C. § 47521 et seq., which governs the manner in which individual airports may adopt noise and access restrictions on certain types of aircraft. Some of the Plaintiffs claim that they will be irreparably harmed by the Town Laws because compliance will cause incalculable damages and severe economic losses that “threaten[s] [their] continued existence.” (Pls.' Br., Docket Entry 32, at 8.) The Town responds, inter alia, that neither federal statute preempts the Town Laws and that the adoption and enforcement of the Town Laws constitutes a valid exercise of its proprietary rights in the Airport.

III. Relevant Airport History

The last twenty-four years of the Airport's history are marked by several key events, disputes, and agreements. From 1983 to 2001, the Town received several federal grants for airport development under the Airport Improvement Program (“AIP”). (Compl. ¶ 60.) The AIP, which was authorized by Congress when it enacted the AAIA, is the nation's current federal grant program for airport development. Under the AIP, the Secretary of Transportation, through the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”), provides monetary grants to public agencies and airport proprietors for the planning and development of public-use airports.

Under the AAIA, the Secretary may approve a grant application only if the airport proprietor agrees to certain written assurances regarding airport operations, which are set forth in Section 47107(a) of the AAIA. See 49 U.S.C. § 47107(a)

. The Secretary is responsible for ensuring compliance with these assurances, see 49 U.S.C. § 47107(g), and is authorized to approve grant applications only if the airport proprietor's assurances are “satisfactory to the Secretary,” 49 U.S.C. § 47107(a). Accordingly, the Secretary, through the FAA, has promulgated a more thorough set of standardized grant assurances with which a recipient of AIP funding must comply (the “Grant Assurances”). (See Compl. Ex. A.)

“Upon acceptance of an AIP grant, the grant assurances become a binding contractual obligation between the airport sponsor and the Federal government.” Pac. Coast Flyers, Inc. v. Cnty. of San Diego, FAA Docket No. 16–04–08, 2005 WL 1900515, at *11 (July 25, 2005)

. Under the terms of the Grant Assurances, each Grant Assurance remains in full effect for twenty years from the date the airport proprietor accepts federal funds, with the exception of Grant Assurances 23 and 25, which remain in effect as long as the airport operates as an airport. (Compl. Ex. A at 36⁶ .)

The Town last accepted an AIP grant in 2001 in the amount of $1,410,000 for rehabilitation of the Airport's terminal apron. (Compl. ¶ 61.) Shortly thereafter, the Committee to Stop Airport Expansion (the “Committee”), an unincorporated association of residents living near the Airport, commenced several legal proceedings in an attempt to halt development of the Airport. In 2003, the Committee sued the FAA...