190 F. Supp. 3d 606
N.D. Tex.2016Background
- Plaintiffs (hunter Corey Knowlton and related hunting/conservation/tourism groups) challenged Delta Air Lines’ 2015 policy refusing to transport trophies of the African “Big Five” (lion, leopard, elephant, rhinoceros, buffalo).
- Plaintiffs allege Delta’s embargo harms their businesses and conservation model and assert federal common-law, state tort, and federal statutory/regulatory claims.
- Delta moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing (1) federal common law does not prohibit choosing what cargo to carry, (2) state tort claims are preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA), and (3) no private right of action exists to enforce the cited FAA statutes/regulations and related certificate claims belong in agency review/courts of appeals.
- The court accepted Plaintiffs’ factual allegations as true for Rule 12(b)(6) purposes but rejected legal conclusions unsupported by law.
- The court dismissed all claims: federal common-law discrimination claim, state tortious-interference claim (preempted by the ADA), and statutory/regulatory claims (no implied private right to sue under the cited FAA provisions; certificate challenge not properly before the district court).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Delta’s refusal to carry Big Five trophies violates federal common law for common carriers | Delta, as a common carrier, must treat shippers equally and cannot discriminate by refusing a type of cargo that harms plaintiffs | A common carrier may refuse to carry particular goods so long as it does not discriminate among persons; Delta has defined its market by publicly excluding Big Five trophies | Dismissed — carrier may choose what goods to carry; prohibition applies to discrimination among persons, not categories of cargo |
| Whether Plaintiffs’ tortious interference claim is preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act (49 U.S.C. § 41713) | Claim is not related to airline “services” and is more like defamation; therefore not preempted; preemption would be an unconstitutional taking | ADA preempts state laws having a connection with airline prices, routes, or services; Delta’s refusal to transport a commodity is a limitation on its services | Dismissed — claim relates to Delta’s services (refusal to provide transportation) and is preempted |
| Whether Plaintiffs may privately enforce 49 U.S.C. §§ 41310(a) and 44711(a)(4) or related FAA regulations | Those statutory/regulatory protections against unreasonable discrimination and unlawful operation imply a private right of action | No express private right exists; post-Sandoval analysis shows Congress did not intend private remedies; enforcement is by DOT/AG or criminal penalties | Dismissed — no implied private right of action under the cited provisions; related regulations cannot create one |
| Whether Plaintiffs can use 49 U.S.C. § 41101 (certificate of public convenience and necessity) to invalidate Delta’s certificate in district court | Plaintiffs seek to invalidate Delta’s certificate based on alleged statutory/common-law violations or equitable doctrines | Challenges to DOT-issued certificates and review of agency orders lie in courts of appeals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110; § 46108 is limited and does not authorize district-court claims to enforce certificate terms against carrier | Dismissed — certificate challenge not properly pursued in district court; appellate/agency review is the exclusive route |
Key Cases Cited
- York County v. Central R.R., 70 U.S. 107 (Sup. Ct.) (establishes common-carrier equal-treatment principle)
- Missouri Pac. R.R. Co. v. Larabee Flour Mills Co., 211 U.S. 612 (Sup. Ct.) (reaffirms common-carrier duty to treat shippers alike)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Sup. Ct.) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Sup. Ct.) (legal conclusions not presumed true at pleading stage)
- Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (Sup. Ct.) (broad ADA preemption of state laws related to airline prices, routes, or services)
- Lyn-Lea Travel Corp. v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 283 F.3d 282 (5th Cir.) (tort claims against airlines may be preempted when connected to prices/services)
- Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (Sup. Ct.) (limits implying private rights of action from statute text)