Northern District Of Texas Dismisses Claims Against Delta For Refusal To Transport Cargo

CC
Clyde & Co

Contributor

Clyde & Co  logo
Clyde & Co is a leading, sector-focused global law firm with 415 partners, 2200 legal professionals and 3800 staff in over 50 offices and associated offices on six continents. The firm specialises in the sectors that move, build and power our connected world and the insurance that underpins it, namely: transport, infrastructure, energy, trade & commodities and insurance. With a strong focus on developed and emerging markets, the firm is one of the fastest growing law firms in the world with ambitious plans for further growth.
Plaintiffs, an individual and entities involved in hunting, conservation and tourism, brought an action Delta Air Lines, Inc. ("Delta") arising from the airline's decision to stop transporting trophies...
United States Transport
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Carrier Had Refused to Transport "Big Five" Trophies

Plaintiffs, an individual and entities involved in hunting, conservation and tourism, brought an action Delta Air Lines, Inc. ("Delta") arising from the airline's decision to stop transporting trophies of legally-hunted lions, leopards, elephants, rhinoceroses and buffalo ("Big Five" trophies).  The plaintiffs asserted that Delta's decision violates US federal common law, statutes and FAA regulations, and amounts to tortious interference with business relations.  The Court granted Delta's motion to dismiss.  The Court found no violation of federal common law because, although a common carrier cannot discriminate as to the individuals for whom it carries cargo, it "may discriminate in what it chooses to carry."  The Court further held that Delta's refusal to transport Big Five trophies was related to its services and, therefore, the plaintiffs' state law claim for tortious interference with business relations was preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act.  Finally, the Court held that no private right of action existed under 49 U.S.C. 41310(a), a statute prohibiting air carriers from "subject[ing] a person, place, port or type of traffic in foreign air transportation to unreasonable discrimination", and that no private right of action existed to invalidate an air carrier's certificate of public convenience and necessity for noncompliance with the certificate's terms.  Conservation Force v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 2016 WL 3166279 (N.D. Tex. June 6, 2016).

Northern District Of Texas Dismisses Claims Against Delta For Refusal To Transport Cargo

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More