Creed v. National Transportation Safety Board
758 F. Supp. 2d 1
D.D.C.2010Background
- Creed sued the NTSB under the APA, FOIA, and Privacy Act for publicly posting Creed's medical information from an investigation into a fatal multi-vehicle crash.
- NTSB posted Creed's medical-information summaries and an accident report with similar summaries on the public docket.
- Creed sought removal of the information and to exclude discussion at a public NTSB Board meeting; TRO was granted to remove the materials temporarily.
- NTSB denied removal; Creed moved for preliminary injunction and the court transferred the case to the D.C. Circuit, concluding jurisdiction lay there.
- The NTSB held a public Board meeting on Sept. 28, 2010, and determined Creed’s fatigue-related conduct caused the crash, with safety recommendations issued.
- The court determined dispositive questions about jurisdiction governed by 49 U.S.C. § 1153(a), which confers exclusive appellate review for NTSB orders in chapter 11.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court has jurisdiction under §1153(a) | Creed argues district court jurisdiction exists under non-chapter-11 claims. | NTSB asserts exclusive appellate jurisdiction under §1153(a). | Exclusive appellate jurisdiction applies; transfer appropriate. |
| Whether Creed's claims challenge a final NTSB order under chapter 11 | Claims arise under APA/Privacy Act, not directly the NTSB order. | Letters denying removal were final orders under chapter 11. | Yes, letters are final orders and review falls within §1153(a). |
| Whether the NTSB letters denying removal were 'final orders' | Letters post-dated the public-disclosure decision and are not final orders. | Letters culminate the decisionmaking and create rights/obligations. | Letters constituted final orders. |
| Whether section 1153(a)'s jurisdiction is exclusive | Privacy Act could allow district-court review notwithstanding §1153(a). | Special statutory review is exclusive; district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. | Section 1153(a) provides exclusive jurisdiction in the courts of appeals. |
| Disposition of the case | Court should retain suit to resolve APA/Privacy Act issues promptly. | Transfer to the D.C. Circuit best serves justice and efficiency. | Case transferred to the D.C. Circuit. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chiron Corp. & PerSeptive Biosys., Inc. v. NTSB, 198 F.3d 935 (D.C.Cir.1999) (NTSB matters related to investigation fall under §1153(a))
- Chiron v. NTSB, 27 F. Supp. 2d 257 (D.D.C.1998) (review of NTSB denial of information disclosure within §1153(a))
- Seminole Pipeline Co. v. Vogt, 794 F. Supp. 438 (D.D.C.1992) (precedent for exclusive review under special statutory provisions)
- City of Rochester v. Bond, 603 F.2d 927 (D.C.Cir.1979) (exclusive review presumption for special statutory review provisions)
- Beins v. United States, 695 F.2d 591 (D.C.Cir.1982) (extrinsic claims context in special review framework)
- City of Dania Beach, Fla. v. FAA, 485 F.3d 1181 (D.C.Cir.2007) (finality and agency action standards for final orders)