895 F.3d 1219
9th Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiff Robert Segalman, who has cerebral palsy and uses a motorized wheelchair, alleged Southwest Airlines repeatedly damaged his wheelchair in 2009–2010, causing injury (including a broken shin when a seatbelt was missing).
- Segalman sued for negligence under California law and for violation of the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA), seeking damages and injunctive relief.
- The district court dismissed the ACAA claim, ruling the ACAA does not create an implied private cause of action and alternatively that Segalman failed to plead exhaustion of administrative remedies; the negligence claim was later dismissed by stipulation.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo whether the ACAA implies a private cause of action under the Supreme Court’s Sandoval framework.
- The Ninth Circuit concluded Congress did not intend to create an implied private cause of action under the ACAA, given the statute’s remedial scheme delegating enforcement to DOT and providing administrative and judicial review mechanisms.
- The court affirmed the dismissal of Segalman’s ACAA claim and declined to reach the alternative exhaustion ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ACAA creates an implied private cause of action | Segalman: the ACAA (and its legislative history) implies a private right to sue for damages, consistent with pre-Sandoval circuit precedent and the Rehabilitation Act analogy | Southwest: ACAA provides administrative and agency-enforcement mechanisms and no express private remedy; absence of congressional intent forecloses implication | The ACAA does not create an implied private cause of action; Congress’s remedial scheme indicates no intent to allow private suits |
| Whether legislative history shows contrary intent | Segalman: Senate reports and patterning after the Rehabilitation Act show Congress intended private remedies | Southwest: Legislative history is equivocal and cannot overcome statutory structure indicating administrative enforcement | Legislative history is insufficient to overcome the presumption from the statute’s enforcement scheme |
| Whether agency enforcement shortcomings justify implying a private cause of action | Segalman: DOT’s limited investigation and enforcement make the statutory scheme ineffective, so private suits should be implied | Southwest: Practical enforcement gaps do not reflect congressional intent; courts may not create causes of action for policy reasons | Administrative shortcomings do not permit courts to infer an implied private cause of action |
| Whether court should reach alternative dismissal ground (exhaustion) | Segalman: (if implied cause existed) he had adequately pled exhaustion | Southwest: District court also ruled failure to plead exhaustion | Court did not decide alternative exhaustion issue because it resolved the implied-right question against Segalman |
Key Cases Cited
- Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (holding implication of private remedies depends on congressional intent; absence of intent is dispositive)
- Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U.S. 11 (1979) (statutory remedial scheme can preclude private causes of action)
- Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002) (rights-creating language alone is insufficient to establish private remedy absent intent)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017) (reaffirming Sandoval framework and limits on courts creating remedies)
- Northstar Fin. Advisors, Inc. v. Schwab Invs., 615 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2010) (examining statutory enforcement allocation to infer congressional intent against private action)
- Stokes v. Southwest Airlines, 887 F.3d 199 (5th Cir. 2018) (post-Sandoval overruling of prior Fifth Circuit pre-Sandoval implied-right precedent)
- Lopez v. JetBlue Airways, 662 F.3d 593 (2d Cir. 2011) (holding ACAA does not create an implied private cause of action)
- Boswell v. Skywest Airlines, Inc., 361 F.3d 1263 (10th Cir. 2004) (same conclusion regarding the ACAA)