California Federal Court Remands Air Crash Case Alleging Violations Of Federal Aviation Regulations

Plaintiff James Bagley commenced a personal injury/property damage negligence action in California state court in a case arising from the crash of a glider tow plane. The plaintiff alleged that the actions of the defendant—the operator of the glider being towed—caused the tow plane to crash directly into the ground and violated the Federal Aviation Regulations ("FARs")." The defendant removed the action to US District Court for the Southern District of California (the "District Court"), contending that removal was proper based upon "federal question" jurisdiction because he allegedly failed to comply with federal regulations. The plaintiff moved to remand the case to state court, asserting that his was a state law action over which the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

The District Court granted plaintiff's motion to remand, finding that there was no federal question jurisdiction. In granting the plaintiff's motion, the District Court found that the plaintiff did not "have a private federal remedy, because Congress did not include a federal cause of action for personal injury suits in the FAA [the Federal Aviation Act]." Moreover, the allegation that the defendant violated the FARs was not sufficient to confer federal jurisdiction over the plaintiff's state law tort claims because the claims did not "involve a substantial and contested federal issue." Although the parties may have disputed the applicability of the FARs, there was no dispute over the meaning of those regulations.

While the District Court acknowledged that the jurisdictional doctrine of complete preemption could provide grounds for removing a claim to federal court, the District Court found the doctrine to not apply in this case, relying upon precedent holding that state law personal injury claims are not displaced by the Federal Aviation Act. The District Court distinguished the doctrine of complete preemption (which may provide a basis for removal) from "ordinary preemption" (i.e., express, field and conflict preemption), holding that the latter only provides defenses that do not confer federal jurisdiction or provide a basis for removal. Bagley v. Teirstein, 2016 WL 5818567 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2016).

For more information, please contact Nicholas Magali, Clyde & Co, New York.

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.