Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines
| Decision Date | 04 October 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-16730.,No. 05-15726.,No. 05-15724.,No. 05-17180.,No. 05-15732.,No. 05-15953.,No. 05-15889.,No. 05-15703.,No. 05-17181.,No. 05-15956.,No. 05-15911.,No. 05-15736.,No. 05-15746.,No. 05-15949.,No. 05-15723.,No. 05-15640.,05-15640.,05-15703.,05-15723.,05-15724.,05-15726.,05-15732.,05-15736.,05-15746.,05-15889.,05-15911.,05-15949.,05-15953.,05-15956.,05-16730.,05-17180.,05-17181. |
| Parties | Sam MONTALVO; Evelyn Montalvo, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SPIRIT AIRLINES; The Boeing Company, Defendants-Appellees. Mary Buxton; Joseph Buxton, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Continental Airlines Inc., a corporation; The Boeing Company, a corporation, Defendants-Appellees. David Woods, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. American Airlines, Inc., Defendant-Appellee, and The Boeing Company; Weber Aircraft LP, Defendants. Varun Gupta, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. American Airlines, Inc.; The Boeing Company, Defendants-Appellees, and Weber Aircraft LP, Defendant. Richard Jaffe; Ellen Jaffe, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. El Al Israel Airlines, Limited; American Airlines, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. Teresa Stonestreet, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. American Airlines, Inc., a Corporation; The Boeing Company, a Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. Barbara A. Hansen, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. American Airlines, Inc.; United Air Lines, Inc.; UAL Corporation, Defendants-Appellees, and The Boeing Company; Weber Aircraft LP, Defendants. Trudy Hanschu; Harry Hanschu, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. American Airlines, Inc., a Corporation; The Boeing Company, a Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. James Varriale, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jetblue Airways Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Anthony R. Twardowski, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. American Airlines, Inc.; America West Airlines, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. Edward Stetser; Rachel Stetser, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. America West Airlines, Inc., a corporation; The Boeing Company, a corporation, Defendants-Appellees. In re Deep Vein Thrombosis Litigation, Rhonda O. Bell, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. US Airways, Inc., also known as U.S. Airways a Subsidiary of U.S. Airways Group, Inc.; US Airways Group Inc., Defendants-Appellees. In re Deep Vein Thrombosis Litigation, Eugene Vanarsdale, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. US Airways, Inc., Defendant-Appellee. James Moyer, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. US Airways, Inc., Defendant-Appellee. James H. English, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. US Airways Inc., Defendant-Appellee. Thomas F. Hind, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Southwest Airlines Co., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Randy Baker, Seattle, WA, and Brenda D. Posada, Sterns & Walker, Oakland, CA, for the plaintiffs-appellants.
William J. Boyce, Houston, Texas, for the defendants-appellees.
Clem C. Trischler, Pittsburgh, PA, for the defendants-appellees.
Stephen C. Kenney and Samantha D. Hilton, San Francisco, CA, for the defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; Vaughn R. Walker, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. Nos. CV-03-03181-VRW, CV-03-05634-VRW, CV-03-05186-VRW, CV-04-00412-VRW, CV-04-01807-VRW, CV-03-03845-VRW, CV-04-00789-VRW, CV-03-03849-VRW, CV-04-04166-VRW, CV-05-00237-VRW, CV-03-05144-VRW, MDL-04-1606-VRW, CV-0405491-VRW, CV-04-1606-VRW, CV-05-02325-VRW, CV-05-03180-VRW, CV-05-03181-VRW.
Before: MARY M. SCHROEDER, Chief Circuit Judge, STEPHEN S. TROTT, Circuit Judge, and BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ,* District Judge.
The Opinion filed in this matter on October 4, 2007, is hereby amended to correct a typographical error. The caption is amended to include the case number for Thomas F. Hind v. Southwest Airlines, Case No. 05-17181.
* The Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
SCHROEDER, Chief Circuit Judge:
I. Introduction.
These consolidated appeals arise from fourteen plaintiffs' negligence claims under California common law against various airlines (collectively "the Airlines" or "Airline-Defendants") for failing to warn about the danger of developing deep vein thrombosis and for providing an unsafe seating configuration on domestic flights.
This case presents the question of whether and to what extent the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (the "FAA"), 49 U.S.C. § 40103, and its corresponding regulations promulgated by the Federal Aviation Administration regarding aviation safety, preempt state law standards of care, including any state-imposed duty to warn about the risks of deep vein thrombosis ("DVT"). We also address whether Plaintiffs may recover for injuries sustained due to an allegedly unsafe seating configuration or whether such claims are preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (the "ADA"), an economic measure designed by Congress to prevent states from regulating airline prices, routes, and services. See 49 U.S.C. § 41713(b)(1) ().
The district court found federal preemption in both instances. It held that the FAA impliedly preempts the field of preflight warnings, and the court dismissed Plaintiffs' failure to warn claim as a matter of law. In re Deep Vein Thrombosis Litig., No. 04-1606, 2005 WL 591241, at *35, *47 (N.D.Cal. March 11, 2005). It observed that Congress' intent in passing the FAA was to preempt the entire field of air safety. It also rested its dismissal on the conflict between federal safety standards governing passenger warnings and any state-imposed duty to warn. The district court further held that the ADA preempts Plaintiffs' unsafe seating configuration claim, because any seating reconfiguration would impermissibly affect airline prices. Id.
We affirm the district court's dismissal of the failure to warn claim, but remand the seating configuration claim for further factual development. The FAA and the relevant federal regulations preempt Plaintiffs' failure to warn claim, because the FAA preempts the entire field of aviation safety through implied field preemption. The FAA and regulations promulgated pursuant to it establish complete and thorough safety standards for air travel, which are not subject to supplementation by, or variation among, state laws. Some circuits have considered whether federal law preempts discrete aspects of air safety. See, e.g. French v. Pan Am Express, Inc., 869 F.2d 1, 6-7 (1st Cir. 1989) (). The Third Circuit has gone one step further. See Abdullah v. American Airlines, Inc., 181 F.3d 363, 367-68 (3d Cir.1999). We adopt the Third Circuit's broad, historical approach to hold that federal law generally establishes the applicable standards of care in the field of aviation safety. Id.; cf. Witty v. Delta Airlines, 366 F.3d 380, 384-86 (5th Cir. 2004). Because the FAA preempts the entire field of aviation safety from state and territorial regulation, the Airlines are under no obligation to warn of the risk of developing DVT, absent a federal mandate to do so. Because there are no federal regulations requiring the Airlines to warn about the risks of DVT, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Plaintiffs' failure to warn claim.
The Airlines' preemption argument on the seating configuration claim presents a closer question. The Airlines argue that any reconfiguration of airplane seating would decrease the number of seats and thus require a significant increase in ticket prices to offset the loss in revenue. They assert that triggering this increase would amount to an indirect regulation of airline fares, which is precluded by the ADA. While the Airlines may ultimately be correct, we remand this claim to the district court for further development, because on the basis of the record before us, there is an insufficient factual basis on which to conclude that any seat reconfiguration would have what the Supreme Court has described as the "forbidden significant effect" on airline ticket prices. See Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 388, 112 S.Ct. 2031, 119 L.Ed.2d 157 (1992).
II. Background.
Plaintiffs filed this suit on April 14, 2003, in state court against Spirit Airlines, Northwest Airlines, El Al Limited, American Airlines, Continental Airlines, America West Airlines, U.S. Airways, and Jetblue Airlines. The facts underlying each of plaintiffs' claims are largely identical. Each plaintiff allegedly developed DVT after taking a transcontinental or mid-continental flight. Each also claims that prolonged, cramped seating during flight was the proximate cause of his DVT. DVT is a medical condition that occurs when a blood clot forms in a deep vein, usually in the leg. It can cause serious complications if the clot breaks off and travels to an organ, most commonly to the lungs or brain. See Witty, 366 F.3d at 382. Some of the plaintiffs in this litigation are in fact deceased as a result of the clots spreading to a vital organ.
In their initial complaint, Plaintiffs raised common law personal injury claims against the Airlines, as well as breach of warranty claims against various airplane manufacturers (the "Manufacturer-Defendants"). They claimed that the Airline-Defendants failed to warn about the risk of developing DVT, and that the Airlines failed to inform passengers about steps they could have taken during flight to mitigate any risk. Plaintiffs argued that at the time they took the flights on which they developed DVT, the Airlines were aware or reasonably should have been aware that long-distance air travel can cause DVT and that resulting blood clots can sometimes result in serious injury or death. Plaintiffs asserted that the Airlines were aware of several measures that could prevent passengers from incurring DVT, such as walking around the cabin, exercising the legs while seated, or wearing special stockings. Despite this alleged knowledge, the Airlines gave no warnings regarding DVT.
In addition to the failure to warn claim, Plaintiffs alleged that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ulysse v. Aar Aircraft Component Servs.
...safety.” ATAA, 520 F.3d at 225.See, e.g., U.S. Airways, Inc. v. O'Donnell, 627 F.3d 1318, 1326 (10th Cir.2010); Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, 508 F.3d 464, 468 (9th Cir.2007) (“[T]he FAA preempts the entire field of aviation safety through implied field preemption. The FAA and regulations pr......
-
Med-Trans Corp. v. Benton
...regulation."); Hoagland v. Town of Clear Lake, Ind., 415 F.3d 693, 697 (7th Cir.2005) (citing as authority); Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, 508 F.3d 464, 468 (9th Cir.2007) ("We adopt the Third Circuit's broad, historical approach to hold that federal law generally establishes the applicable ......
-
Gill v. Jetblue Airways Corp.
...the risk of developing deep-vein thrombosis from sitting on an aircraft—beyond those established by federal aviation regulations. 508 F.3d 464 (9th Cir.2007). The holdings of these cases, however, are clearly limited to claims arising from the kinds of in-flight hazards subject to FAA safet......
-
In re Air Crash Near Clarence Ctr. New York, on February 12, 2009
...state regulation of air safety. See, e.g., U.S. Airways, Inc. v. O'Donnell, 627 F.3d 1318, 1326 (10th Cir.2010); Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, 508 F.3d 464, 468 (9th Cir.2007); Greene v. B.F. Goodrich Avionics Sys., Inc., 409 F.3d 784, 795 (6th Cir.2005); Abdullah v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 181 ......
-
New York Court Holds That Federal Standards Of Care Preempt State-Law Standards Governing Hiring, Training, And Retention Of Pilots
...doctrine prevails nonetheless. In reaching this conclusion, the court leaned heavily on three federal circuit court cases—Montalvo, 508 F.3d 464, Witty v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 366 F.3d 380 (5th Cir. 2004), and Greene, 409 F.3d 784—in which "plaintiffs were thwarted in their pursuit of a re......
-
The Ninth Circuits 'Nuanced' Approach To FAA Preemption Leads To Greater Uncertainty And Invites Artful Pleading
...regulations." Martin ex rel. Heckman v. Midwest Express Holdings, Inc., 555 F.3d 806, 811(9th Cir. 2009); Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, 508 F.3d 464, 473 (9th Cir. 2007). The court's earlier decisions in Montalvo and Martin offer some guidance on the meaning of "pervasive In Montalvo, plaint......
-
Ventress III Provides Another Tool For Airlines: Ninth Circuit Says Federal Aviation Act Preempts Pilots State Law Employment Claims
...laws on the same subject." The court then looked back on its key aviation preemption decisions, starting with Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, 508 F.3d 464 (9th Cir. 2007). In Montalvo, the court held that claims based on an airline crew's failure to warn about travel-related deep vein thrombos......
-
Keeping An Eye On 'Pervasive Regulation' In Aviation And Its Effect On Implied Federal Preemption
...be aware of the applicable law when evaluating the viability of an implied preemption defense. Footnotes 1 Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, 508 F.3d 464 (9th Cir. 2 Martin ex rel. Heckman v. Midwest Exp. Holdings, Inc., 555 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 2009). 3 See Gilstrap v. United Air Lines, Inc., 709......
-
Chapter § 2.05 PHYSICAL INJURIES
...Shop Act only applies to "traditional land-based supplier of the alcohol").[602] See e.g.: Ninth Circuit: Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, 508 F.3d 464 (9th Cir. 2007) ("The district court correctly held that because there is no federal requirement that airlines warn passengers about the risk o......
-
State Drone Laws: a Legitimate Answer to State Concerns or a Violation of Federal Sovereignty
...as well as federal statutes. Hillsborough Cnty. v. Automated Med. Lab., Inc., 471 U.S. 707, 715-16 (1985); Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, 508 F.3d 464, 471 (9th Cir. 2007) ("[W]hen an agency administrator promulgates pervasive regulations pursuant to his Congressional authority, we may infer ......
-
As the Drone Flies: How to Think About Property Ownership, Federal Preemption, and Airspace Control in the Era of Remotely Piloted Aircraft
...On, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 110-15, 144 (2008).73. Id. at 115-16.74. Id. at 146.75. Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, 508 F.3d 464, 473 (9th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted).76. Air Commerce Act of 1926, Pub. L. No. 69-254, ch. 344, § 10, 44 Stat. 568, 574.77. Id. § 6.78. Id. §......
-
Chapter § 2.01 INTRODUCTION
...scheme concerning airline safety and tarmac operations preempt plaintiff's negligence claim"). Ninth Circuit: Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, 508 F.3d 464 (9th Cir. 2007) ("The district court correctly held that because there is no federal requirement that airlines warn passengers about the ri......