Lozada v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
1:13-cv-07388
S.D.N.Y.Jun 17, 2014Background
- On Sept. 16, 2010, plaintiff Yvonne Lozada was removed from Delta Flight 172 at JFK before takeoff and released by Port Authority police without charges; she alleges negligence.
- Lozada admitted consuming alcohol at airport venues before boarding; Delta employees (FA Meadows and the Captain) reported she appeared intoxicated, belligerent, slurred speech, pressed call button repeatedly, and demanded free alcohol.
- Delta crew warned Lozada that continued behavior could result in removal; the Captain directed Port Authority police to remove her.
- Lozada filed suit in Bronx Civil Court alleging negligence; Delta removed to federal court and moved for summary judgment asserting federal preemption.
- Lozada failed to file a Local Rule 56.1 response; the court deemed Delta’s factual statements admitted and independently reviewed the record.
- The court found Delta’s decision to remove Lozada fell within airline “service” decisions and was not arbitrary or capricious under federal law, granting summary judgment for Delta.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lozada’s state-law negligence claim is preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) | Lozada contends removal was negligent and not preempted | Delta contends removal is part of airline "service" and ADA preempts state tort claims about refusal to transport | Court: ADA preempts Lozada’s claim—removal is a service decision and not outrageously or unreasonably taken |
| Whether the Federal Aviation Act (FAA) bars Lozada’s negligence claim | Lozada argues negligence claim remains despite FAA provisions | Delta argues FAA authorizes refusal to transport passengers who may be inimical to safety and such decisions are reviewable only for arbitrary and capricious conduct | Court: FAA preempts; Delta’s safety-based removal was not arbitrary and capricious |
| Whether there is a genuine dispute of material fact to survive summary judgment | Lozada’s deposition generally disputes Delta’s version | Delta produced flight attendant deposition, captain affidavit, and reports showing intoxication and disruptive behavior; Lozada failed to controvert with admissible evidence | Court: No genuine dispute—Lozada’s self-serving, inconsistent deposition insufficient to defeat summary judgment |
| Whether alleged rudeness or treatment by police defeats preemption | Lozada cites rude treatment and possible discrimination | Delta notes rudeness alone does not make conduct non-preempted and police—not Delta employees—provided some of the complained-of conduct; no discrimination or physical injury alleged | Court: Rudeness and police conduct do not save the claim from preemption; no outrageousness shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (standard for evaluating evidence and inferences)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment principles)
- Ruta v. Delta Airlines, 322 F. Supp. 2d 391 (airline removal decisions as safety-related; FAA preemption)
- Rombom v. United Air Lines, 867 F. Supp. 214 (three-part test for ADA preemption of airline "service")
- Adamsons v. American Airlines, 58 N.Y.2d 42 (captain and crew authority; deference to safety decisions)
- Weiss v. El Al Israel Airlines, 471 F. Supp. 2d 356 (application of Rombom test; rudeness insufficient to avoid preemption)
- Williams v. Trans World Airlines, 509 F.2d 942 (deference to carrier’s safety determinations)