Zhang Bin v. Boeing Company
792 F.3d 805
7th Cir.2015Background
- Asiana Flight 214 crash at San Francisco International Airport; 3 dead, 49 serious injuries, many others minor or none.
- NTSB attributed accident to pilot error; aircraft could not go around once impact was imminent.
- MDL consolidation in the Northern District of California; some related claims filed in Illinois state courts against Boeing.
- Boeing removed these suits to federal court arguing federal officer removal under 28 U.S.C. §1442(a)(1) and admiralty jurisdiction under §1333(1).
- District court remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; Boeing appealed for review of remand orders.
- Court held Boeing was not a “person acting under” a federal officer, but admiralty jurisdiction existed for trans-ocean aviation under §1333(1); remand orders reversed and cases remanded for MDL transfer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Boeing is a person acting under a federal officer | Boeing self-certifies compliance, acting under FAA authority | Self-certification makes Boeing act under the FAA for §1442(a)(1) | No §1442(a)(1) removal; not acting under federal officer |
| Whether self-certification can create acting-under status | FAA delegation through self-certification equates to acting under | Self-certification does not confer acting-under status or remove a state-law claim | Self-certification does not establish acting-under status |
| Scope of appellate review for remand under §1447(d) | Review limited to the specific reasons for remand | Review of the entire remand order is permitted | Remand order review extends to all grounds under the remand decision |
| Whether admiralty jurisdiction exists for a trans-ocean aviation accident | Events causing injury over navigable water suffice under Grubart | Injury content over land matters;aq aviation may fall outside | Admiralty jurisdiction exists under §1333(1) for trans-ocean aviation with maritime nexus |
| Whether removal was proper under §1441(a) given admiralty jurisdiction | Admiralty claims do not automatically permit removal absent independent jurisdiction | §1333(1) admiralty jurisdiction provides basis for removal | Removal proper; subject-matter jurisdiction exists and removal was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., 551 U.S. 142 (Supreme Court (2007)) (regulation alone does not make private firm acting under agency)
- Brill v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 427 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 2005) (when remand is authorized, all reasons on the order may be reviewed)
- Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199 (Supreme Court (1996)) (review extends to the order when appellate authority exists)
- Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 547 U.S. 633 (Supreme Court (2006)) (textual interpretation supports reviewing the order, not just reasons)
- Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336 (Supreme Court (1976)) (exceptional remand grounds not favored; Thermtron cautioned)
- Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249 (Supreme Court (1972)) (no federal admiralty jurisdiction over aviation torts within continental U.S.)
- Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (Supreme Court (1995)) (admiralty jurisdiction extends where injury on land has substantial connection to maritime activity)
- Offshore Logistics, Inc. v. Tallantire, 477 U.S. 207 (Supreme Court (1986)) (Death on the High Seas Act and maritime nexus extend admiralty jurisdiction)
- In re Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354 (Supreme Court (1959)) (saving-to-suitors clause; maritime claims not necessarily federal questions)