Justia Transportation Law Opinion Summaries

Two pilots, Luis F. Bonnet and Carlos R. Benítez Maldonado, were employed by Benítez Aviation, Inc. (BAI), which managed a Cessna aircraft. In April and May 2019, Bonnet and Benítez piloted several flights without the required certificates for commercial operations. The FAA suspended their Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) certificates for 270 days, alleging they operated the flights as air carriers or commercial operators without proper certification. The pilots received their regular salaries but no additional compensation for these flights.The FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Certificate Action, which the pilots appealed to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). An administrative law judge (ALJ) upheld the FAA's suspension order, finding that the flights were conducted for compensation and hire, thus requiring compliance with Part 135 regulations. The NTSB affirmed the ALJ's decision, concluding that the flights were subject to air carrier or commercial operator requirements and that the pilots violated multiple FAA regulations. The NTSB also found that the ALJ did not exhibit bias and that the 270-day suspension was appropriate.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that substantial evidence supported the NTSB's findings that the flights were operated as common carriers for compensation, thus requiring Part 135 certification. The court also found that the pilots were responsible for ensuring compliance with FAA regulations, regardless of BAI's role in booking the flights. The court upheld the NTSB's decision, including the 270-day suspension of the pilots' certificates, finding it justified based on the pilots' regulatory violations and the potential risk to passenger safety. The petition for review was denied. View "Bonnet v. Whitaker" on Justia Law

Mendocino Railway, a California corporation, owns and operates a railroad line known as the "Skunk Train" between Fort Bragg and Willits, California. The City of Fort Bragg and the California Coastal Commission sought to regulate the use and maintenance of the Railway's properties within the City, which the Railway resisted, claiming federal preemption under the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA). The City filed a state court action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to compel the Railway to comply with local regulations. The Railway argued that federal law preempted these local regulations. Subsequently, the Railway filed a federal lawsuit seeking a declaration that the City's and Commission's regulatory actions were preempted by federal law and an injunction to prevent interference with its operations.The Mendocino County Superior Court overruled the Railway's demurrer, which argued that federal law preempted all local regulations. The Railway's subsequent petitions to the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court were unsuccessful. The Railway then filed an answer in the state court, asserting federal preemption as an affirmative defense. Meanwhile, the Commission intervened in the state court action, seeking a declaration that the Coastal Act and local coastal program applied to the Railway's activities and were not preempted by federal law. The Railway also attempted to remove the state action to federal court, but the district court remanded it back to state court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court's dismissal of the Railway's federal lawsuit under the Colorado River doctrine, which allows federal courts to abstain from exercising jurisdiction in favor of parallel state court proceedings. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding that the state court proceedings were sufficiently parallel to the federal action and that considerations of avoiding piecemeal litigation, forum shopping, and the order in which the forums obtained jurisdiction supported the dismissal. The court held that the state court could adequately protect the Railway's rights and that the federal preemption issue could be resolved in the state court proceedings. View "MENDOCINO RAILWAY V. AINSWORTH" on Justia Law

Susan Hardy, a resident of Louisiana, flew from Newark, New Jersey, to Oslo, Norway, on Scandinavian Airlines System (SAS). Upon disembarking in Oslo, she fell and fractured her leg. Hardy sued SAS in the Eastern District of Louisiana, claiming that Article 33 of the Montreal Convention provided both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over SAS. The district court dismissed her case, ruling that the Montreal Convention only granted subject matter jurisdiction and not personal jurisdiction. Additionally, the court found that SAS’s waiver of service did not establish personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2).The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana dismissed Hardy’s complaint without prejudice. The court concluded that Article 33 of the Montreal Convention did not create personal jurisdiction over SAS. It also rejected Hardy’s argument that SAS’s waiver of service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) established personal jurisdiction, reasoning that SAS did not have sufficient contacts with Louisiana to warrant such jurisdiction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Article 33 of the Montreal Convention does not independently create personal jurisdiction over a defendant airline, as it only prescribes venue. However, the court found that the district court erred in its analysis under Rule 4(k)(2). The correct analysis should have considered SAS’s contacts with the United States as a whole, not just Louisiana. The Fifth Circuit concluded that SAS had sufficient minimum contacts with the United States to establish personal jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2). Consequently, the court reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Hardy v. Scandinavian Airline System" on Justia Law

Union Pacific Railroad Company and the Association of American Railroads challenged the Surface Transportation Board's (Board) adoption of the Final Offer Rate Review (FORR) procedure for determining the reasonableness of rail carrier rates in smaller cases. Under FORR, the Board selects either the shipper’s or the rail carrier’s final offer without modification. The petitioners argued that the Board lacked statutory authority to implement FORR, that FORR was unconstitutionally vague, and that it was arbitrary and capricious.The Board is tasked with resolving rate disputes between rail carriers and shippers when rates are not set by private contract. The Board must hold a "full hearing" and give due consideration to specific statutory factors before determining the reasonableness of a rate. The Board adopted FORR to streamline the process for smaller disputes, allowing it to choose between the final offers submitted by the parties.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed whether the Board had statutory authority to implement FORR. The court concluded that FORR conflicted with the Board’s statutory duties. The court held that the Board must hold a "full hearing" and that the shipper must bear the burden of proof on the final offer, which FORR did not require. Additionally, the court found that FORR improperly limited the Board’s ability to prescribe the maximum rate, as required by statute, by forcing the Board to choose between the parties' final offers without modification.The Eighth Circuit granted the petitions for review and vacated the final rule, holding that the Board lacked statutory authority to implement FORR. View "Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. STB" on Justia Law

Thomas E. Bold, Jr. was found unconscious behind the wheel of his legally parked car in a mall parking lot. The car's engine was running, and the headlights were on. When roused by Officer Thomas Gelnett, Bold appeared intoxicated and admitted to drinking at a nearby bar. He intended to sleep in his car until he was fit to drive. Bold was arrested for DUI and refused a blood test at a medical facility. Consequently, PennDOT suspended his license for 18 months due to his refusal.Bold appealed the suspension in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas. During the hearing, Officer Gelnett admitted there was no evidence that Bold had driven the car while intoxicated. The court initially upheld the suspension but later reversed its decision, finding no reasonable grounds to believe Bold was in control of the vehicle's movement. The court cited the case Solomon v. PennDOT, which found insufficient grounds for suspicion when a suspect was found sleeping in a parked car with the engine running.The Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the officer had reasonable grounds to believe Bold was in actual physical control of the vehicle. The court relied on past cases where the presence of a driver in a running vehicle was deemed sufficient for reasonable grounds. However, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania found that the circumstances did not provide reasonable grounds to believe Bold was operating or in actual physical control of the vehicle's movement. The court emphasized that the implied consent law requires some objective evidence of control over the vehicle's movement. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court's ruling, siding with Bold. View "Bold v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Curtis Rookaird, represented by Paul Parker, was terminated by BNSF Railway Company after performing an air-brake test, which he argued was a protected activity under the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA). Rookaird claimed his termination was retaliatory. Initially, a jury found in Rookaird’s favor, but the Ninth Circuit vacated the verdict and remanded the case to the district court to reconsider whether the air-brake test contributed to BNSF’s decision to terminate him. On remand, the district court conducted a bench trial and ruled in favor of BNSF, concluding that while the air-brake test contributed to the termination, it did so "very little."The district court found that BNSF had conceded the air-brake test contributed to Rookaird’s termination but ruled that BNSF was entitled to an affirmative defense by showing the test contributed minimally. The court also upheld BNSF’s evidentiary rulings, excluding certain testimony and admitting comparator evidence. Rookaird appealed, arguing the district court misapplied the FRSA and erred in its evidentiary rulings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s evidentiary rulings, finding no abuse of discretion. However, it vacated the district court’s judgment on the affirmative defense issue. The Ninth Circuit held that under the FRSA, an employer must prove by clear and convincing evidence that it would have terminated the employee absent the protected activity, not merely that the protected activity contributed "very little" to the decision. The case was remanded for the district court to determine if BNSF met this burden, given that the air-brake test could not contribute even in part to the termination decision. View "Parker v. BNSF Railway Co." on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, former employees of Alpine Site Services, Inc., filed a lawsuit alleging that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay them the required overtime wages. Alpine contended that the Motor Carrier Act (MCA) exemption applied, which would exempt them from paying overtime. The plaintiffs argued that they were not properly classified under the MCA exemption.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas reviewed the case and agreed with Alpine, finding that the plaintiffs were classified as "loaders" under the MCA exemption. The court found that the plaintiffs' job duties included loading vehicles, which directly affected the safety of operation of motor vehicles in interstate commerce. The district court dismissed the suit with prejudice, concluding that the plaintiffs fell under the MCA exemption and were not entitled to overtime pay.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court did not err in classifying the plaintiffs as "loaders" under the MCA exemption. The court noted that the plaintiffs' duties included loading vehicles, which required the exercise of judgment and discretion, and that this work directly affected the safety of operation of motor vehicles. The court also found that the plaintiffs regularly engaged in loading activities, which constituted a substantial part of their job responsibilities. The appellate court concluded that the MCA exemption applied to the plaintiffs in all workweeks, even those in which they performed only non-safety-affecting duties. The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' claim that the district court abused its discretion in denying their motion to amend the court's factual findings, as the plaintiffs failed to provide meaningful analysis or supporting authority for this argument. The decision of the district court was affirmed. View "Kelley v. Alpine Site Services" on Justia Law

Yanjun Xu, a Chinese citizen and member of China’s Ministry of State Security, was convicted of conspiracy to commit economic espionage and conspiracy to steal trade secrets from multiple aviation companies over a five-year period. Xu was also convicted of attempted economic espionage by theft or fraud and attempted theft of composite fan-blade technology from GE Aviation. He was sentenced to a combined 240 months’ imprisonment. Xu appealed, seeking to vacate the judgment and remand for a new trial, arguing that the district court erred in failing to dismiss Counts 1 and 2 as duplicitous and abused its discretion in admitting expert testimony in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b). Alternatively, Xu sought to have his sentence vacated, arguing it was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied Xu’s motion to dismiss the indictment, finding that the conspiracy counts were not duplicitous as they alleged a single overarching conspiracy. The court also admitted expert testimony from James Olson, a retired CIA officer, who testified about espionage techniques and tradecraft, which Xu argued violated Rule 704(b). The court overruled Xu’s objections, finding that Olson’s testimony did not directly opine on Xu’s intent but rather described common practices in espionage.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the indictment was not duplicitous as it charged a single conspiracy with multiple overt acts. The court also found that Olson’s testimony did not violate Rule 704(b) and that any potential error was cured by the district court’s limiting instructions to the jury. Additionally, the appellate court found Xu’s sentence to be procedurally and substantively reasonable, noting that the district court properly calculated the intended loss and considered the § 3553(a) factors. The court concluded that Xu’s sentence was within the Guidelines range and not disparate compared to similarly situated defendants. View "United States v. Yanjun Xu" on Justia Law

In 2021, Shannon Carson was injured in an automobile accident in Louisiana while driving an 18-wheeler truck owned by his employer. The accident was caused by another driver, Jamarcea Washington, who was insured by GEICO and died in the collision. Carson's employer's truck was insured by American Millenium Insurance Company, which provided $75,000 in underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. Carson also had a personal automobile insurance policy with USAA, which provided $50,000 in UIM coverage. Carson settled with GEICO and American Millenium for their policy limits and then sought additional UIM benefits from his USAA policy.The case was initially filed in Louisiana state court and then removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana based on diversity jurisdiction. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of USAA, concluding that Carson, as a Class II insured under South Carolina law, was prohibited from stacking his personal UIM insurance on top of the American Millenium UIM coverage. Carson filed a Rule 59(e) motion, arguing that he was entitled to "port" his personal UIM coverage under South Carolina law. The district court denied the motion, maintaining that the case involved stacking, not portability, and that Carson had already received the statutory limit for UIM coverage.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court concluded that South Carolina law does not prevent Carson from recovering UIM benefits under his personal automobile insurance policy with USAA. The court distinguished between stacking and portability, noting that while stacking is prohibited for Class II insureds, portability allows an insured to recover under their personal UIM policy when their vehicle is not involved in the accident. The court vacated the district court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Carson v. USAA Casualty Insurance" on Justia Law

The case involves the crash of Lion Air Flight JT 610, a Boeing 737 MAX, which took off from Jakarta, Indonesia, and crashed into the Java Sea on October 29, 2018, killing all on board. The plaintiffs are family members and representatives of the estates of two passengers, Liu Chandra and Andrea Manfredi. They filed lawsuits against Boeing and other defendants, seeking damages under various legal theories, including the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA), state law, and other federal statutes.The Chandra case was initially filed in Illinois state court and then removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Manfredi case was filed directly in the same federal court. Both sets of plaintiffs demanded a jury trial and asserted claims under DOHSA, state law, and other federal statutes. Boeing filed motions to limit the plaintiffs' claims to DOHSA and to preclude a jury trial. The district court ruled in favor of Boeing, holding that DOHSA was the exclusive remedy and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial. The court dismissed all non-DOHSA claims and certified the jury trial issue for interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's rulings, holding that DOHSA preempts all other claims and mandates a bench trial. The court reasoned that DOHSA's language and legislative history indicate that claims under the statute must be brought in admiralty, which does not carry the right to a jury trial. The court also noted that Congress has not amended DOHSA to allow for jury trials in federal court, despite longstanding judicial interpretations to the contrary. Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims must proceed without a jury. The court's decision was to affirm the district court's rulings. View "Buehler v. Boeing Company" on Justia Law