Ginsberg v. Northwest, Inc.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16163
9th Cir.2011Background
- Ginsberg was a WorldPerks Platinum Elite member whose status was revoked by Northwest on June 27, 2008.
- Ginsberg sought clarification for the revocation and Northwest cited Paragraph 7 of the World-Perks terms allowing sole judgment on abuse.
- Ginsberg filed suit January 8, 2009 asserting breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant, and misrepresentation claims.
- District court dismissed several claims as ADA-preempted and dismissed the breach-of-contract claim without prejudice for insufficiency of facts.
- Ginsberg appeals only the district court’s ADA preemption ruling as to the implied covenant claim.
- The court reverses, holding ADA does not preempt state-law contract claims such as the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the ADA preempt the implied covenant claim? | Ginsberg's claim is a contract-based remedy not preempted. | ADA preempts state-law claims related to pricing, routes, or services. | No preemption; claim survives. |
| Does the claim “relate to” prices, routes, or services? | Relation is too tenuous to preempt; not directly pricing. | Any link to pricing or services triggers preemption. | Not a sufficient relation to trigger preemption. |
| Does prior Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent support non-preemption of contract claims? | Precedent allows contract claims to proceed under Wolens/Charas/West. | ADA's purpose could preempt contract claims that affect deregulation. | Preemption not required; contract claims permitted. |
| Is the district court’s broad interpretation of 'services' overbroad? | ‘Services’ should not sweep in private contract terms. | ‘Services’ may extend to airline offerings subject to preemption. | Charas confines 'services' to transportation-related aspects; not broad. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (1992) (preemption of deceptive advertising due to relation to rates)
- American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U.S. 219 (1995) (breach-of-contract claims not preempted; distinguishes contract terms from regulations)
- Charas v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 160 F.3d 1259 (1998) (en banc; explains interpretation of 'services' in § 1305(a)(1))
- West v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 995 F.2d 148 (1993) (breach-of-good-faith claim not preempted; kept contract claims alive)
- Air Transport Association of America v. City & County of San Francisco, 266 F.3d 1064 (2001) (non-preemption of employment-discrimination laws; limits ADA reach on nonprice aspects)
- Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transp. Ass'n, 552 U.S. 364 (2008) (state regulation with direct effect on rates/routes/services preempted)
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996) (preemption must be narrowly construed; respect for state sovereignty)