Register, Jr. v. United Airlines, Inc.
Filing
15
ORDER Granting 8 Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Plaintiff will have leave to amend the Complaint in compliance with the terms of this order. His amended pleading must be filed, if at all, by Wednesday, March 15, 2017. Signed by Judge Thomas J. Whelan on 3/1/2017. (jao)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
WILLIE C. REGISTER, Jr.,
Case No.: 16-CV-2480 W (BGS)
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS [DOC. 8]
v.
UNITED AIRLINES, Inc.,
Defendant.
15
16
17
Pending before the Court is a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to
18
19
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) brought by Defendant United Airlines, Inc.
20
(“United”). [Doc. 8.] Plaintiff Willie C. Register, Jr. (“Register”) opposes. [Doc. 13.]
21
The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See
22
Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s
23
motion.
24
//
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
//
1
16-CV-2480 W (BGS)
1
I.
2
BACKGROUND1
Plaintiff Register is a high school pastor residing in San Diego County. Defendant
3
United is an airline corporation incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Illinois.
4
(Compl. [Doc. 1] ¶¶ 2–3.)
5
On October 22, 2015, Register boarded a United flight out of Atlanta, Georgia
6
bound for San Diego, California. (Compl. [Doc. 1] ¶ 7.) While boarding and thereafter
7
during taxi on the runway,2 he became involved in a verbal altercation with a United
8
flight attendant named Prya. (Id. [Doc. 1] ¶¶ 7–17.) Prya twice “bumped” Register,
9
waking him up. (Id.) Register complained to Prya’s supervisor twice. (Id.) After the
10
second complaint, Register “overheard Prya say to the supervisor[,] ‘I just don’t feel
11
comfortable’ with Plaintiff[,] or words to that effect.” (Id. [Doc. 1] ¶ 17.) This evidently
12
led to a complaint to the plane’s captain from one of the flight crew, who “made an
13
announcement regarding a situation on the plane that needed to be addressed and turned
14
the plane around.” (See id.) Register, who is African-American, alleges that United
15
intentionally discriminated against him on account of his race. (See id. [Doc. 1] ¶ 22.)
16
On October 4, 2016, Register commenced this action for action for: (1) violation of
17
42 U.S.C. § 1981; (2) violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 51; (3) violation of 42 U.S.C. §
18
2000d; (4) false imprisonment; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (6)
19
negligence; (7) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (8) breach of contract.
20
(Compl. [Doc. 1].)
21
United now moves for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that: (1) the
22
Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 44902, preempts Plaintiff’s state-law causes of action;
23
24
25
1
26
2
27
28
The Complaint alleges the following facts. [Doc. 1.]
The Complaint leaves it somewhat ambiguous as to whether the plane ever actually took off before the
incident in question. It would appear that it did not, and that the incident took place while the plane was
taxiing toward the runway. (See Compl. [Doc. 1] ¶ 18 (“Once the plane returned to the gate, . . . a
United . . . employee . . . boarded . . . and asked plaintiff to grab his belongings and follow him off the
plane.”).)
2
16-CV-2480 W (BGS)
1
and (2) the Complaint contains insufficient facts to support Plaintiff’s federal causes of
2
action. (Def.’s Mot. [Doc. 8].) Register Opposes. (Pl.’s Opp’n [Doc. 13].)
3
4
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
5
“After the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party may
6
move for judgment on the pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). Judgment on the pleadings
7
is proper “when, taking all the allegations in the non-moving party’s pleadings as true,
8
the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fajardo v. Cnty. Of Los
9
Angeles, 179 F.3d 698, 699 (9th Cir. 1999). “Because the motions are functionally
10
identical, the same standard of review applicable to a Rule 12(b) motion applies to its
11
Rule 12(c) analog.” Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir.
12
1989).
13
17
For the purposes of [a Rule 12(c)] motion, the allegations of the non-moving
party must be accepted as true, while the allegations of the moving party
which have been denied are assumed to be false . . . . Judgment on the
pleadings is proper when the moving party clearly establishes on the face of
the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that it
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir.
18
1990) (internal citations omitted).
14
15
16
19
Complaints must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
20
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The Supreme Court has interpreted
21
this rule to mean that “[f]actual allegations must be enough to rise above the speculative
22
level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007). The allegations in the
23
complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
24
relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
25
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
26
27
Well-pleaded allegations in the complaint are assumed true, but a court is not
required to accept legal conclusions couched as facts, unwarranted deductions, or
28
3
16-CV-2480 W (BGS)
1
unreasonable inferences. Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986); Sprewell v.
2
Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001).
3
4
III.
DISCUSSION
5
A.
6
United contends that the Federal Aviation Act (“FAA”), specifically 49 U.S.C. §
State-Law Causes of Action
7
44902, preempts all of Plaintiff’s state-law causes of action. (Def.’s Mot. [Doc. 8-1]
8
5:18–10:24.)
9
Congress has the power to preempt state law. See U.S. CONST. ART. VI, cl. 2. It
10
may do so expressly, or through implication. See Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 505
11
U.S. 504, 516 (1992). “There are two types of implied preemption: conflict preemption
12
and field preemption.” Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, 508 F.3d 464, 470 (9th Cir. 2007).
13
Conflict preemption exists when a state law conflicts with a federal law or “stands as an
14
obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of
15
Congress in enacting the federal law.” Id. “[F]ield preemption occurs when Congress
16
indicates in some manner an intent to occupy a given field to the exclusion of state law.”
17
Id. (citing Cipollone, 505 U.S. at 516).
18
The FAA contains no express preemption of state law. See Montalvo, 508 F.3d at
19
470; Martin ex rel. Heckman v. Midwest Exp. Holdings, Inc., 555 F.3d 806, 808 (9th Cir.
20
2009) (“The Federal Aviation Act has no express preemption clause.”). However, courts
21
have held that the FAA, together with regulations promulgated by the Federal Aviation
22
Administration, implicitly “occupies the entire field of aviation safety.” See Montalvo,
23
508 F.3d at 471–74. That said, the FAA’s preemptive scope is coextensive with the
24
pervasiveness of federal regulations in any particular area of law. See Martin ex rel.
25
Heckman, 555 F.3d at 811. In some areas without pervasive federal regulations, state
26
standards of care may still apply. See id. at 811–12 (holding that federal law did not
27
preempt state tort claims involving airplane stairs because pervasive federal regulations
28
4
16-CV-2480 W (BGS)
1
did not exist in that area); see also Ventress v. Japan Airlines, 747 F.3d 716, 721–22 (9th
2
Cir. 2014) (outlining this distinction).
3
Per the FAA, “[s]ubject to regulations of the Under Secretary, an air carrier . . .
4
may refuse to transport a passenger . . . the carrier decides is, or might be, inimical to
5
safety.” 49 U.S.C. § 44902(b). As there is a federal standard directly on point that
6
authorizes additional federal regulations, this is not an area without pervasive federal
7
regulatory control such that field preemption might not apply. See, e.g., Shaffy v. United
8
Airlines, Inc., 360 F. App'x 729, 730–31 (9th Cir. 2009)3; Mercer v. Sw. Airlines Co.,
9
No. 13-CV-05057-MEJ, 2014 WL 4681788, at *3–6 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2014). The
10
FAA preempts all state law impinging upon the circumstances under which an air carrier
11
may remove a passenger from a flight for safety reasons. See 49 U.S.C. § 44902(b);
12
Ventress, 747 F.3d at 721–22.
13
Register contends that a preemption decision is premature at this stage because
14
“the Complaint does not allege that Plaintiff was removed from the plane for safety
15
reasons.” (See Pl.’s Opp’n [Doc. 13] 5:8–12.) He would have the Court overlook his
16
allegation that “the captain made an announcement regarding a situation on the plane that
17
needed to be addressed and turned the plane around[.]” (See Compl. [Doc. 1] ¶ 17.)
Analyzing a flight captain’s decision to divert an aircraft because of a “situation”
18
19
onboard, perceived from the perspective of the flight deck, necessitates an inquiry into
20
the federally occupied field of flight safety, specifically the circumstances under which
21
an air carrier may remove a passenger for safety reasons. (Compl. [Doc. 1] ¶ 17.) See 49
22
U.S.C. § 44902(b); Ventress, 747 F.3d at 721–22; see also Mercer, 2014 WL 4681788, at
23
*5 (“Discounting [a statement by an airline employee to the effect that the captain
24
considered that plaintiff a “security threat”] as a pretext for intentional racial
25
discrimination, Plaintiff misses the point . . . . Defendant has it right that whether or not
26
27
28
3
Per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3(b), unpublished Ninth Circuit orders issued after January 1, 2007 may be
cited as persuasive authority per Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1.
5
16-CV-2480 W (BGS)
1
the captain was correct in his belief that Plaintiff posed a security threat, the fact that the
2
safety of the flight was in question at the time Defendant acted is what is relevant to this
3
analysis.”).
4
Register attempts to distinguish Mercer on the ground that the captain here used
5
the word “situation” in an announcement to the plane, whereas in Mercer a flight captain
6
relayed to that plaintiff that he had considered him a “security threat” via an airline
7
employee after the fact. (See Pl.’s Opp’n [Doc. 13] 6:28–7:3 (citing Mercer, 2014 WL
8
4681788, at *2).) This is a distinction without a difference. In essence, Register urges
9
the Court to infer that the United captain here entertained no thought process having to do
10
with the safety of passengers in deciding to divert a flight because of a perceived onboard
11
situation. (See Pl.’s Opp’n [Doc. 13] 5:7–7:8.) This inference is not a plausible one, and
12
the Court will not draw it. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 682; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
13
Plaintiff’s state-law causes of action implicate a federally occupied field. The FAA
14
preempts them. See 49 U.S.C. § 44902(b); Ventress, 747 F.3d at 721–22.
Plaintiff’s California-law causes of action will be dismissed without leave to
15
16
amend.4 See 49 U.S.C. § 44902(b); Ventress, 747 F.3d at 721–22.
17
18
B.
19
Federal Causes of Action
1.
42 U.S.C. § 1981
20
United next contends that Register does not allege sufficient facts to support a
21
cause of action for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. (See Def.’s Mot. [Doc. 8-1] 11:1–
22
13:14.)
23
//
24
//
25
26
4
27
28
Leave to amend may be denied if amendment would be an exercise in futility. See DCD Programs,
Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987); Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). As this
decision is based on an issue of law, amendment could not cure the defect.
6
16-CV-2480 W (BGS)
1
That section provides:
2
All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same
3
right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be
4
parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and
5
proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white
6
citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes,
7
licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.
8
42 U.S.C. § 1981(a). A cause of action for its violation requires an allegation of
9
“intentional discrimination on account of race.” See Evans v. McKay, 869 F.2d 1341,
10
1344 (9th Cir. 1989). There must be enough facts to give rise to a plausible inference of
11
racial animus. See id.; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 682.
12
Only the most threadbare, conclusory allegations of racial antagonism on the part
13
of United employees appear in the Complaint. (See Compl. [Doc. 1] ¶¶ 22 (“Prya was the
14
aggressor, motivated by racial animus . . . .”), 26 (“Defendant engaged in intentional
15
discrimination on the basis of Plaintiff’s perceived race, color, alienage, or ethnicity.”).)
16
Without more, the Court need not—and does not—accept these allegations as true. See
17
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678–79. The Complaint alleges that Register became involved in a
18
disagreement with a member of a United flight crew. (See Compl. [Doc. 1] ¶¶ 7–22.)
19
Allegations about the incident are devoid of any references to Register’s race or ethnicity
20
on the part of any United agent or employee—or, indeed, any other fact that might
21
indicate that United acted because of Register’s heritage. (See id.) Register alleges that
22
the flight attendant in question used the word “bitch” in reference to an elderly African
23
American passenger in front of children, which caused Register to speak up, leading to
24
the outset of the situation that gave rise to this lawsuit. (See id.) But mere disrespect and
25
vulgarity, without more, are not enough to support a plausible inference of racial animus
26
necessary for a § 1981 cause of action.
27
28
Plaintiff’s cause of action for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 will be dismissed with
leave to amend.
7
16-CV-2480 W (BGS)
1
2.
United’s final contention is that Register does not allege enough facts to give rise
2
3
42 U.S.C. § 2000d
to a cause of action for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.
4
That section provides:
5
No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national
6
origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be
7
subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal
8
financial assistance.
9
42 U.S.C. § 2000d. “To state a claim for damages under [§ 2000d], a plaintiff must
10
allege that (1) the entity involved engaged in unlawful discrimination; and (2) the entity
11
involved was receiving federal financial assistance.” Cabrera v. Alvarez, 977 F. Supp. 2d
12
969, 978 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (citing Rodriguez v. Cal. Highway Patrol, 89 F. Supp. 2d
13
1131, 1139 (N.D. Cal. 2000)).
Here, Plaintiff offers only the conclusory allegation that “Defendant’s failure to
14
15
permit Plaintiff to fly . . . on the basis of Plaintiff’s race, color, and/or national origin
16
discriminated against Plaintiff.” (Compl. [Doc. 1] ¶ 38.) As discussed above as to §
17
1981, Plaintiff appears to urge the Court to draw an inference of racial discrimination
18
from the allegedly vulgar and disrespectful conduct of the United flight attendant named
19
Prya. (See Compl. [Doc. 1] ¶¶ 7–22.) However, the Complaint alleges insufficient facts
20
to make that inference a plausible one. (See id.) See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 682. There
21
are insufficient factual allegations of racial discrimination to support a cause of action for
22
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s cause of action for violation of § 2000d will
23
24
be dismissed with leave to amend.
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
//
8
16-CV-2480 W (BGS)
1
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for judgment
2
3
CONCLUSION & ORDER
on the pleadings. [Doc. 8.]
4
Plaintiff will have leave to amend the Complaint in compliance with the terms of
5
this order.5 His amended pleading must be filed, if at all, by Wednesday, March 15,
6
2017.
7
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 1, 2017
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
“The court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
9
16-CV-2480 W (BGS)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?