682 F. App'x 310
5th Cir.2017Background
- In August 2015 Delta announced an immediate, worldwide ban on shipping lion, leopard, elephant, rhinoceros, and buffalo trophies (the “Big Five”) as cargo.
- Plaintiffs (including Conservation Force and Corey Knowlton) sued, alleging violations of federal common law, federal statutes (including an implied right of action under 49 U.S.C. § 41310(a)), and Texas tort law (tortious interference).
- The district court granted Delta’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
- The district court held (1) federal common law does not force a carrier to accept all categories of cargo; (2) the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) preempts the state tortious-interference claim; and (3) plaintiffs cannot bring a private action to enforce § 41310(a) based on Cort v. Ash and Alexander v. Sandoval factors.
- While the federal case was pending, two plaintiffs filed a substantially similar administrative complaint with the Department of Transportation.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal and found plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend was insufficiently particularized.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal common law prohibits a carrier from refusing a class of cargo | Federal common law forbids a common carrier from discriminating against a cargo class | A common carrier may refuse particular cargo categories; it need not carry all cargo types | Court: No federal common-law duty to accept all cargo; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether § 41310(a) creates an implied private right of action | § 41310(a) anti-discrimination clause is privately enforceable | No implied private right exists under Supreme Court factors (Cort/Alexander) | Court: No implied private right; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the ADA preempts state tortious-interference claim | State tort claim is not preempted and may proceed | ADA preempts state laws related to price, route, or service of an air carrier (49 U.S.C. § 41713) | Court: ADA preempts the state tort claim; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was appropriate (and whether leave to amend should have been allowed) | Plaintiffs sought leave to amend (not particularized) | Plaintiffs failed to show grounds for amendment | Court: Dismissal with prejudice proper; plaintiffs’ footnote request insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (Sup. Ct. 1975) (framework for implying private causes of action)
- Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (Sup. Ct. 2001) (limits on implied rights of action; plaintiff must show congressional intent)
- Conservation Force v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 190 F. Supp. 3d 606 (N.D. Tex. 2016) (district court decision dismissing complaint and analyzing federal common law, ADA preemption, and § 41310)
- Goldstein v. MCI WorldCom, 340 F.3d 238 (5th Cir. 2003) (standard for denying leave to amend where plaintiff fails to particularize proposed amendments)