bower v. egyptair airlines, 1st cir. (2013)

7/26/2019 Bower v. EgyptAir Airlines, 1st Cir. (2013)

1/27

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 1427

COLI N BOWER, on hi s own behal f and as t he guar di anand l egal cust odi an of hi s mi nor chi l dr en, N and R,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,

v.

EGYPTAI R AI RLI NES COMPANY,

Def endant , Appel l ee,

MI RVAT EL- NADY BOWER,

Def endant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Ri char d G. St ear ns, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Tor r uel l a, Ci r cui t J udge,

and Di Cl er i co, * Di st r i ct J udge.

J oshua L. Sol omon, wi t h whom Bar r y S. Pol l ack, Sul l i van &Worcest er LLP, Howard M. Cooper , J ul i e E. Gr een and Todd & Wel dLLP, was on br i ef f or appel l ant .

Chr i st opher Car l sen, wi t h whomDebor ah Anne El sasser , Cl yde &Co US LLP, Br i an Paul Voke and Campbel l Campbel l Edwar ds & Conr oy,

P. C. , was on br i ef f or appel l ee.J udi t h R. Nemsi ck, wi t h whomHol l and & Kni ght LLP and Mi chaelT. Mar oney, was on br i ef f or Ami ci Cur i ae I nter nat i onal Ai rTr ansport Associ at i on and Ai r Tr anspor t Associ at i on of Amer i ca,I nc.

* Of t he Di st r i ct of New Hampshi r e, si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/27

Oct ober 2, 2013

-2-


3/27

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. Thi s appeal st ems f r om an

i nt er nat i onal par ent al ki dnappi ng per pet r at ed by def endant Mi r vat

El - Nady. Pl ai nt i f f - appel l ant i n t hi s case, Col i n Bower , i s El -

Nady' s f or mer husband. I n August 2009, El - Nady act ed i n vi ol at i on

of a cour t order when she dr ove t he f ormer coupl e' s t wo mi nor

chi l dr en t o New Yor k Ci t y, wher e t hey boar ded an Egypt Ai r Ai r l i nes

Company ( "Egypt Ai r " ) f l i ght t o Cai r o, Egypt . Thi s pr ompt ed Bower ,

on hi s own behal f and on behal f of hi s t wo mi nor chi l dr en, t o

i ni t i at e t hi s l awsui t agai nst El - Nady and Egypt Ai r . Bower cl ai ms

t hat t he ai r l i ne i nt er f er ed wi t h hi s cust odi al r el at i ons and was

negl i gent i n al l owi ng El - Nady t o boar d t he f l i ght despi t e t he

al l eged pr esence of " r ed f l ags" suggest i ng t hat she was abduct i ng

t he t wo chi l dr en. The di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed Egypt Ai r ' s mot i on f or

summary j udgment and di smi ssed Bower ' s cl ai ms, f i ndi ng t hat

Egypt Ai r di d not know of El - Nady' s pl an t o abduct t he chi l dr en and

di d not owe ei t her Bower or t he chi l dr en a dut y to i nvest i gat e t he

"r ed f l ags. " Bower now appeal s f r om t hat det er mi nat i on, ar gui ng,

among ot her t hi ngs, t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n det er mi ni ng

t hat i t had subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on. We f i nd t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t had j ur i sdi ct i on over t he cl ai ms and af f i r mt hei r di smi ssal ,

al bei t on t he gr ounds t hat t he cl ai ms ar e pr eempt ed under t he

Ai r l i ne Der egul at i on Act , 49 U. S. C. 41713 ( "ADA") .

-3-


4/27

I. Background

A. Factual Background

Mi r vat El - Nady, an Egypt i an ci t i zen, and Col i n Bower , a

Uni t ed St at es ci t i zen, met i n Cai r o, Egypt and mar r i ed i n 1998.

Subsequent l y, t hey moved t o London wher e they had t wo chi l dren,

whom t he par t i es r ef er t o as " N" and "R. "1 I n 2005, t he f ami l y

moved t o Massachuset t s, but t he r el at i onshi p between Bower and El -

Nady event ual l y sour ed, and t hey di vor ced i n Massachuset t s on

December 1, 2008. Pur suant t o t he di vor ce decr ee, Bower was gi ven

sol e l egal cust ody of t he chi l dr en, but he shar ed physi cal cust ody

wi t h El - Nady. The decr ee al so pr ohi bi t ed El - Nady f r om t aki ng t he

chi l dr en out of Massachuset t s.

On or about August 7, 2009, Bower dr opped of f t he

chi l dr en at El - Nady' s home i n Massachuset t s f or a cour t - or der ed

vi si t . On August 11, 2009, El - Nady dr ove t he t wo chi l dr en t o

J ohn F. Kennedy I nter nat i onal Ai r por t ( " J FK") i n New York. Once

t her e, she pur chased t hr ee one- way busi ness- cl ass t i cket s t o Cai r o,

Egypt , f or whi ch she pai d al most $10, 000 i n cash. El - Nady and her

chi l dr en pr esent ed Egypt i an passpor t s f or t r avel . Egypt Ai r di d not

r ecogni ze t hat t he chi l dr en' s passpor t s had no ent r y vi sas

r ef l ect i ng t he chi l dr en' s ar r i val i n t he Uni t ed St at es. Mor eover ,

1 The di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat t he chi l dr en wer e dual ci t i zens oft he Uni t ed St ates and the Uni t ed Ki ngdom, and that t hey wereel i gi bl e t o become ci t i zens of Egypt .

-4-


5/27

Egypt Ai r di d not comment on t he f act t hat El - Nady and her chi l dr en

had di f f er ent l ast names, 2 nor di d i t check f or t hei r I - 94 f or ms. 3

Fol l owi ng t hei r f l i ght , El - Nady and t he chi l dr en r emai ned

i n Cai r o, Egypt wi t h no i nt ent i on of r et ur ni ng t o t he Uni t ed

St at es. El - Nady had pr evi ousl y wor ked i n Egypt and cur r ent l y has

f ami l y t here. I n December 2009, appr oxi matel y f our mont hs af t er

movi ng t o Egypt , El - Nady obt ai ned an or der f r om a cour t i n Cai r o

gr ant i ng her cust ody of t he t wo chi l dr en. Shor t l y t her eaf t er ,

Bower r etai ned counsel i n Cai r o and appeal ed t he cust ody or der . 4

The Cai r o cour t grant ed Bower ' s mot i on seeki ng vi si t at i on r i ght s,

and he was abl e t o vi si t t he chi l dr en at l east f our t i mes i n Cai r o,

under t he supervi si on of El - Nady and members of her f ami l y.

2 Per Egypt i an nami ng cust oms, El - Nady r et ai ned her mai den name

af t er mar r yi ng whi l e her chi l dr en t ook t hei r f at her ' s sur name.3 The I - 94 For mi s an ar r i val / depar t ur e r ecor d i ssued by a Cust omsand Bor der Pr ot ect i on ( "CBP") of f i cer t o f or ei gn vi si t or s ent er i ngt he Uni t ed St at es. The of f i cer gener al l y at t aches t he I - 94 For mt ot he vi si t or ' s passpor t when t he vi si t or ent er s t he Uni t ed St at es.As a gener al r ul e, when t he vi si t or exi t s t he Uni t ed St at es vi acommer ci al ai r cr af t , he or she must f i l l out t he depar t ur e por t i onof t he For m and pr ovi de i t t o t he ai r l i ne, whi ch i n t ur n pr ovi desi t t o t he CBP of f i cer at t he por t of depar t ur e. See 8 C. F. R. 231. 2( b) ( 1) . However , Uni t ed St at es ci t i zens do not r equi r e I - 94For ms. See 8 C. F. R. 231. 2( b) ( 2) ( "The f or m I - 94 r equi r ement

. . . does not appl y t o Uni t ed St at es ci t i zens. . . . ") .

4 Whi l e t he r ecor d i s mur ky as to t he out come of Bower ' s appeal ,and nei t her par t y br i ef ed t he i ssue, i t appear s t hat Bower wasul t i mat el y successf ul and t hat on November 24, 2010, t he cour t i nCai r o set asi de and nul l i f i ed i t s pr i or or der gr ant i ng El - Nadycust ody. See App. 1103- 09 ( t r ansl at i ng t he Ar abi c or der ) .

-5-


6/27

B. Procedural History

On Febr uar y 5, 2010, Bower f i l ed t hi s act i on i n

Massachuset t s Super i or Cour t on hi s behal f and on behal f of hi s

chi l dr en i n hi s capaci t y as guar di an of "N" and "R. " As

def endant s, he l i st ed bot h El - Nady5 and Egypt Ai r . Hi s compl ai nt

asser t ed t hat Egypt Ai r i nt ent i onal l y i nt er f er ed wi t h hi s cust odi al

r el at i ons and was negl i gent i n al l owi ng El - Nady and t he chi l dr en

passage t o Egypt despi t e t he pr esence of numerous " r ed f l ags" t hat

suggest ed a chi l d abduct i on was i n pr ogr ess. He al so al l eged t hat

he has i ncur r ed si gni f i cant economi c damages i n at t empt i ng t o

l ocat e and r ecover hi s chi l dr en si nce t hey wer e abduct ed by hi s

f ormer spouse, and t hat he has suf f ered t r auma and emot i onal

di st r ess wi t h physi cal mani f est at i ons, as wel l as l oss of f i l i al

consort i um, due to the absence of hi s chi l dr en.

On March 8, 2010, Egypt Ai r r emoved t he case t o f ederal

di st r i ct cour t on di ver si t y gr ounds or , al t er nat i vel y, on t he

gr ounds t hat t he cl ai ms wer e pr eempt ed by an i nt ernat i onal t r eat y

known as t he Mont r eal Convent i on. 6 Fol l owi ng r emoval , Bower f i l ed

a mot i on seeki ng a rul i ng t o resol ve t he i ssue of whet her t he cour t

5 Bower ' s cl ai ms agai nst El - Nady i ncl uded i nt er f er ence wi t hcust odi al r el at i ons, f al se i mpr i sonment , negl i gent i nf l i ct i on of

emot i onal di st r ess, i nt ent i onal i nf l i cti on of emot i onal di st r ess,and l oss of f i l i al consor t i um.

6 Convent i on on t he Uni f i cat i on of Cer t ai n Rul es of I nt er nat i onalCar r i age by Ai r , May 28, 1999, S. Treat y Doc. No. 106- 45, 2242U. N. T. S. 309 ( ent er ed i nt o f or ce Nov. 4, 2003) [ her ei naf t erMont r eal Convent i on] .

-6-


7/27

possessed subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on. The di st r i ct cour t

det er mi ned t hat t her e was di ver si t y j ur i sdi ct i on, f i ndi ng t hat bot h

El - Nady and Egypt Ai r wer e ci t i zens of Egypt at t he t i me the

l i t i gat i on commenced.

On Mar ch 21, 2012, t he di st r i ct cour t gr ant ed Egypt Ai r ' s

mot i on f or summary j udgment and di smi ssed al l of Bower ' s cl ai ms

agai nst Egypt Ai r . As a t hr eshol d mat t er , t he di st r i ct cour t

r ej ect ed Egypt Ai r ' s ar gument t hat t he cl ai ms agai nst i t wer e

preempted by t he ADA and t he Mont r eal Convent i on. As t o t he

mer i t s, t he di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat Egypt Ai r had no act ual

knowl edge that El - Nady i n f act pl anned t o ki dnap t he chi l dr en, t hus

doomi ng Bower ' s i nt er f er ence wi t h cust odi al r el at i ons cl ai m. As t o

t he negl i gence cl ai ms, t he cour t concl uded t hat Egypt Ai r owed no

dut y of car e, ei t her t o Bower or t he chi l dr en, t o i nvest i gat e

whet her El - Nady was t r avel i ng wi t h t hem i n vi ol at i on of a cour t

or der .

Fol l owi ng t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r ul i ng on t he mot i on f or

summary j udgment , Bower f i l ed t hi s t i mel y appeal . 7

II. Discussion

We begi n our di scussi on by expl ai ni ng why t he di st r i ct

cour t possessed subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on over t hi s case. We

t hen pr oceed t o t he mat t er of pr eempt i on under t he ADA.

7 The di st r i ct cour t ent er ed a def aul t j udgment agai nst El - Nady onOct ober 26, 2012.

-7-


8/27

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Bower ' s f i r st ar gument on appeal i s t hat t he di st r i ct

cour t er r ed when i t f ound t hat t he par t i es had compl et e di ver si t y

of ci t i zenshi p. Speci f i cal l y, Bower cl ai ms t hat El - Nady i s a

"f ugi t i ve f r omj ust i ce" under 18 U. S. C. 1073, si nce she f l ed t he

Uni t ed St at es t o avoi d pr osecut i on f or ki dnappi ng hi s chi l dr en.

Because she i s a f ugi t i ve, he ar gues, t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d

have f ound t hat her domi ci l e was her l ast known pr e- f l i ght

r esi dence i n Massachuset t s. Such a f i ndi ng woul d, Bower ar gues,

pr oper l y di vest t he cour t of subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on.

We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s concl usi on t hat i t had

subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on over t he compl ai nt de novo. Fer nndez-

Var gas v. Pf i zer , 522 F. 3d 55, 63 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . For t he

f ol l owi ng r easons, we di sagr ee wi t h Bower ' s j ur i sdi ct i on ar gument

and f i nd t hat t he di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y concl uded t hat El - Nady' s

domi ci l e f or di ver si t y pur poses i s Egypt .

The l aw i s wel l est abl i shed t hat an adul t person acqui r es

a l egal "domi ci l e" when he or she i s physi cal l y pr esent i n a

l ocat i on and has t he i nt ent t o r emai n t her e f or t he i ndef i ni t e

f ut ur e. Hal l v. Cur r an, 599 F. 3d 70, 72 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ; see

Gar c a- Pr ez v. Sant ael l a, 364 F. 3d 348, 350 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ;

Rodr guez- D az v. Si er r a- Mar t nez, 853 F. 2d 1027, 1029 ( 1st Ci r .

1988) ( ascer t ai ni ng an i ndi vi dual ' s domi ci l e requi r es t wo showi ngs:

( 1) physi cal pr esence i n a st at e; and ( 2) t he i nt ent t o make such

-8-


9/27

a st at e t he i ndi vi dual ' s home) . El - Nady, by vi r t ue of her pr esence

i n Egypt and her demonst r at ed i nt ent t o remai n ther e, acqui r ed a

l egal domi ci l e i n Egypt . Her st at us as a f ugi t i ve does not pr event

such a f i ndi ng wher e t he "pr esence pl us i nt ent " r ul e i s sat i sf i ed.

See St i f el v. Hopki ns, 477 F. 2d 1116, 1123 ( 6t h Ci r . 1973)

( "Ref ugees or f ugi t i ves, who l eave t hei r homes because of . . .

appr ehensi on of pr osecut i on can est abl i sh domi ci l es wi t hi n t he

j ur i sdi ct i ons i n whi ch t hey seek asyl um. " ) ; Popal v. Sl ovi s, No. 12

Ci v. 3916, 2013 WL 1234875 (S. D. N. Y. Mar . 27, 2013) ( f i ndi ng that

al l eged mur der er f l eei ng t o Cal i f or ni a t o evade a pol i ce

i nvest i gat i on coul d est abl i sh a domi ci l e i n Cal i f or ni a) .

I t i s onl y when t hese pr esence and i nt ent r equi r ement s

cannot be met , such as when a f ugi t i ve' s cur r ent whereabout s ar e

unknown, t hat t he f ugi t i ve' s l ast domi ci l e bef or e f l eei ng "shoul d

be hi s domi ci l e f or di ver si t y pur poses. " See Ll oyd v. Loef f l er ,

694 F. 2d 489, 490 ( 7t h Ci r . 1982) . As J udge Posner expl ai ned:

I t seems absur d t o hol d t hat si nce a f ugi t i vemi ght be domi ci l ed anywher e or maybe evennowhere t he act of becomi ng a f ugi t i ve put s aper son beyond t he j ur i sdi ct i on of t he f eder alcour t s. Pr obabl y t he l ast domi ci l e of t hef ugi t i ve bef or e he f l ed shoul d be hi s domi ci l ef or di ver si t y pur poses. . . . Thi s i s a si mpl er ul e, and avoi ds r ewar di ng t he f ugi t i ve f orhi s el usi veness.

I d. at 490 ( i nt er nal ci t at i on omi t t ed) . Wher e an al l eged f ugi t i ve

has est abl i shed bot h physi cal pr esence and i nt ent t o r emai n

i ndef i ni t el y at a known l ocat i on, however , t he l ogi c of Ll oyd does

-9-


10/27

not sound wi t h equal f or ce. Cf . R os v. Ci vi l et t i , 571 F. Supp.

218, 223 ( D. P. R. 1983) ( consi der i ng an ar my deser t er , t he cour t

st at ed, " t he t ot al ci r cumst ances of hi s desert i on must be exami ned

t o know i f hi s st ay, however l ong, i n Mexi co wor ked t o ef f ect a

change of hi s domi ci l e" ) . Under such ci r cumst ances, t he f ugi t i ve

has, t hr ough compl i ance wi t h t he "pr esence pl us i nt ent " r ul e,

est abl i shed a new domi ci l e i n t he st at e wher e she or he i s hi di ng.

See Uni t ed St ates v. Ot herson, 480 F. Supp. 1369, 1371 n. 4 ( S. D.

Cal . 1979) ( "[ A] f ugi t i ve f r om j ust i ce can est abl i sh a l egal

' domi ci l e' wher e he i s hi di ng. ") .

I t i s undi sput ed t hat El - Nady, i n August of 2009, f l ed

t he Uni t ed St at es and t ook her chi l dr en t o Cai r o, Egypt , wher e she

had pr evi ousl y wor ked and cur r ent l y has f ami l y. Whi l e t her e,

El - Nady i ni t i at ed a cust ody bat t l e i n Egypt i an cour t s f or her

chi l dr en. I ndeed, as assert ed i n Bower ' s compl ai nt , El - Nady

i nt ends t o r emai n i n Egypt wi t h t he chi l dr en permanent l y. 8

El - Nady' s r el ocat i on and her i nt ent t o r emai n i n Egypt sat i sf y t he

r equi r ement s of t he "pr esence pl us i nt ent " rul e. See Padi l l a-

Mangual v. Pav a Hosp. , 516 F. 3d 29, 31- 32 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ;

Sul l i van v. Town of Ashf i el d, 227 Mass. 24, 26, 116 N. E. 565, 566

( 1917) ( "A domi ci l e once acqui r ed i s pr esumed t o cont i nue unt i l a

new one i s acqui r ed by act ual change of r esi dence wi t h t he

8 I n hi s Amended Compl ai nt , Bower st ates t hat " on or aboutAugust 11, 2009, [ El - Nady] est abl i shed a new domi ci l e f or her sel fi n Egypt . "

-10-


11/27

i nt ent i on of r emai ni ng per manent l y at t he pl ace of r emoval . " ) . As

such, at t he t i me the sui t was brought , El - Nady was domi ci l ed i n

Egypt , and Ll oyd' s "pr e- f l i ght domi ci l e" r ul e i s whol l y

i nappl i cabl e.

Bower di sagr ees wi t h t hi s assessment and i nst ead argues

t hat Ll oyd i s di r ectl y appl i cabl e t o t he f acts of t hi s case. I n

Ll oyd, he cl ai ms, t he wher eabout s of t he f ugi t i ve def endant s wer e

al so known, gi ven t hat t he f ugi t i ves had sent sever al pi eces of

cor r espondence post mar ked f r omMi l waukee, Wi sconsi n t o t hei r f ami l y

member s. We di sagr ee. The mere exi st ence of post marked

cor r espondence, on i t s own, f ai l s t o show t hat t he f ugi t i ve

def endant s i nt ended t o r emai n i n Wi sconsi n i ndef i ni t el y. See Mi ss.

Band of Choct aw I ndi ans v. Hol yf i el d, 490 U. S. 30, 48 ( 1989)

( st at i ng t hat domi ci l e " i s not necessar i l y synonymous wi t h

' r esi dence' ") . I n f act , t he Sevent h Ci r cui t not ed t hat t he

pl ai nt i f f had spent "t housands of dol l ar s on pr i vat e det ect i ves" t o

l ocat e t he f ugi t i ve def endant s and hi s ki dnapped daught er , t o no

avai l . Ll oyd, 694 F. 2d at 490. I n cont r ast , t he undi sput ed

evi dence her e shows t hat El - Nady f l ed t o Egypt wi t h t he i nt ent t o

r emai n t her e i ndef i ni t el y and t hat Bower had no t r oubl e f i ndi ng

her , as evi nced by hi s appeal of t he Egypt i an cour t ' s cust ody or der

and hi s mul t i pl e vi si t s wi t h hi s chi l dr en under El - Nady' s

super vi si on. Ther ef or e, t he hol di ng i n Ll oyd i s i napposi t e t o t he

f act s of t hi s case.

-11-


12/27

Next , Bower cl ai ms t hat i f El - Nady qual i f i es as an

Egypt i an domi ci l i ar y, so do t he chi l dr en "N" and "R, " who wer e

l i vi ng wi t h her at t he t i me t hi s sui t was f i l ed. Because t he

chi l dr en ar e pl ai nt i f f s i n t hi s case, he cl ai ms, t her e i s not

compl et e di ver si t y gi ven t hat t he def endant s, Egypt Ai r and El - Nady,

ar e al so Egypt i an domi ci l i ar i es. Al t hough t he di st r i ct cour t di d

not make a f i ndi ng as t o t hi s i ssue, we concl ude t hat t he chi l dr en

r emai n domi ci l ed i n Massachuset t s.

We r el y on f eder al common l aw when det er mi ni ng a

l i t i gant ' s domi ci l e f or di ver si t y pur poses. Rodr guez- D az, 853

F. 2d at 1030, 1033. Typi cal l y, "r el evant r ul es of st at e l aw

pr ovi de t he basi s f or t he appl i cabl e f eder al common l aw. " I d. at

1033. I n Massachuset t s, t he domi ci l e of a chi l d i s t he same as t he

domi ci l e of t he par ent who has l awf ul cust ody of t he chi l d. Dur f ee

v. Dur f ee, 293 Mass. 472, 478 ( 1936) ( emphasi s added) ; see al so Gi l

v. Ser vi zi o, 375 Mass. 186, 189 ( 1978) ( "The domi ci l e of t he . . .

chi l dr en [ i s] t he same as t he domi ci l e of t hei r par ent who has

l awf ul cust ody of t hem. " ) . Accor di ngl y, a par ent wi t hout l awf ul

cust ody has " no power t o change t he domi ci l e of hi s chi l d whi l e

. . . subj ect t o a val i d decree gi vi ng cust ody t o t he" ot her

par ent . Conl ey v. Conl ey, 324 Mass. 530, 534 ( 1949) ( hol di ng t hat

t he domi ci l e of t he chi l d f ol l ows t hat of t he par ent wi t h l awf ul

-12-


13/27

cust ody) . Bower was awar ded sol e l egal cust ody of hi s chi l dr en. 9

Si nce a chi l d' s domi ci l e f ol l ows t hat of t he par ent wi t h l awf ul

cust ody, and El - Nady has no power t o change the domi ci l e of her

chi l dr en whi l e t hey ar e subj ect t o a val i d cust ody or der , t he

domi ci l e of t he chi l dr en i s Massachuset t s. See Conl ey, 324 Mass.

at 534.

Thus, t her e exi st s compl et e di ver si t y of ci t i zenshi p

bet ween t he par t i es such t hat t he f eder al cour t s have subj ect

mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on t o hear t hi s case.

B. Preemption Under the ADA

Bower ' s second cl ai m of er r or on appeal i s t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n awar di ng summar y j udgment t o Egypt Ai r .

Speci f i cal l y, Bower t akes i ssue wi t h t he cour t ' s f i ndi ngs t hat t he

ai r l i ne had no act ual knowl edge that El - Nady was t r avel i ng wi t h t he

chi l dr en i n vi ol at i on of a cour t or der and was under no dut y to

i nvest i gat e t hat f act . For t he r easons t hat f ol l ow, however , we

concl ude t hat Bower ' s common l aw t ort cl ai ms agai nst Egypt Ai r are

pr eempt ed by t he ADA.

We revi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s grant i ng of summar y

j udgment de novo, drawi ng al l r easonabl e i nf er ences i n f avor of t he

non- movi ng part y. Rockwood v. SKF USA, I nc. , 687 F. 3d 1, 9 ( 1st

9 Bower r el i es heavi l y on t he val i di t y of t hi s Massachuset t scust ody or der t o ar gue t hat El - Nady depr i ved hi m of hi s cust odyr i ght s. He cannot , t her ef or e, suggest t hat t he or der i s i nval i d orshoul d ot her wi se be i gnor ed by t hi s cour t f or di ver si t y pur poseswi t hout under mi ni ng hi s cl ai m on t he mer i t s.

-13-


14/27

Ci r . 2012) . We may af f i r mon any i ndependent l y suf f i ci ent gr ounds

made mani f est by t he r ecord. 10 I d. Feder al pr eempt i on i ssues ar e

quest i ons of st at ut or y const r uct i on t hat we r evi ew de novo.

Di Fi or e v. Amer i can Ai r l i nes, I nc. , 646 F. 3d 81, 85 ( 1st Ci r .

2011) .

To det er mi ne whet her pl ai nt i f f ' s common l aw t or t cl ai ms

are pr eempt ed by t he ADA, 49 U. S. C. 41713( b) ( 1) , we begi n by

not i ng t hat t he Supr emacy Cl ause nul l i f i es st at e l aws t hat

"i nt er f er e wi t h, or ar e cont r ar y t o" f eder al l aws enact ed by

Congr ess. Gi bbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. ( 9 Wheat . ) 1, 210- 11 ( 1824) .

Federal pr eempt i on may be ei t her expr ess or i mpl i ed, and where

expr ess, t he st ar t i ng poi nt f or our anal ysi s i s t he "l anguage

empl oyed by Congress and t he assumpt i on t hat t he ordi nar y meani ng

of t hat l anguage accur at el y expr esses t he l egi sl at i ve pur pose. "

FMC Cor p. v. Hol l i day, 498 U. S. 52, 56- 57 ( 1990) ( i nt er nal

quotat i on marks omi t t ed) .

Her e, t he ADA expr essl y st at es t hat except as ot her wi se

pr ovi ded, "a St at e, pol i t i cal subdi vi si on of a St at e, or pol i t i cal

aut hor i t y of at l east t wo St at es may not enact or enf or ce a l aw,

r egul at i on, or ot her pr ovi si on havi ng t he f or ce and ef f ect of l aw

10 I n i t s appel l at e br i ef , Egypt Ai r ar gues al t er nat i vel y t hat t hedi st r i ct cour t shoul d have concl uded t hat t he cl ai ms were pr eempt edby t he ADA and t he Mont r eal Convent i on. Bower opposed t hi sar gument i n hi s r epl y br i ef . We af f i r m t he di st r i ct cour t ' sdi smi ssal of Bower ' s cl ai ms on t he separ at e basi s t hat t hey ar ei ndeed pr eempt ed by t he ADA.

-14-


15/27

r el at ed t o a pr i ce, r out e, or ser vi ce of an ai r car r i er t hat may

pr ovi de ai r t r anspor t at i on . . . . " 49 U. S. C. 41713( b) ( 1) . As

we recent l y expl ai ned, ADA pr eempt i on anal ysi s br eaks down i nt o two

sub- quest i ons: whet her t he cl ai m i s based on a st at e " l aw,

r egul at i on, or ot her pr ovi si on havi ng t he f or ce and ef f ect of l aw, "

( t he "mechani sm" quest i on) , and whet her t he cl ai m i s suf f i ci ent l y

"r el at ed t o a pr i ce, r out e, or ser vi ce of an ai r car r i er " ( t he

"l i nkage" quest i on) . Br own v. Uni t ed Ai r l i nes, I nc. , 720 F. 3d 60,

63 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

I n t he case at hand, pl ai nt i f f s asser t ed common l aw

cl ai ms of i nt er f er ence wi t h cust odi al r el at i ons, negl i gence,

negl i gent i nf l i ct i on of emot i onal di st r ess, and l oss of f i l i al

consort i um. Tur ni ng t o our r ecent deci si on i n Br own, we f i nd t hat

t he quest i on of whet her t hese cl ai ms f al l wi t hi n t he ADA' s

pr eempt i on pr ovi si on has al r eady been answered. I n Br own, we

expl ai ned t hat st ate common l aw cl ai ms ar e cover ed by t he l anguage

"other pr ovi si on havi ng t he f or ce and ef f ect of l aw. " I d. at 65-

66; see Uni t ed Ai r l i nes, I nc. v. Mesa Ai r l i nes, I nc. , 219 F. 3d 605,

607 (7t h Ci r . 2000) ( "St ate common l aw count s as an ' other

pr ovi si on havi ng t he f or ce and ef f ect of l aw' f or pur poses of t hi s

st at ut e. " ) . But see Gi nsber g v. Nor t hwest , I nc. , 695 F. 3d 873,

880- 81 ( 9t h Ci r . 2012) , cer t . gr ant ed, 133 S. Ct . 2387 ( 2013)

( r ul i ng common l aw cont r act cl ai ms r el at ed t o an ai r l i ne' s f r equent

f l yer pr ogr am were not pr eempted by t he ADA) .

-15-


16/27

Thi s i s not t o say t hat Congress i ntended al l common l aw

t ort and cont r act cl ai ms t o be pr eempt ed by t he ADA. To t he

cont r ar y, t he Supr eme Cour t has cl ear l y st at ed t hat t her e ar e

numerous cl ai ms t hat survi ve pr eempt i on. Moral es v. Trans Wor l d

Ai r l i nes, I nc. , 504 U. S. 374, 390 ( 1992) ( expl ai ni ng t hat st at e

act i ons t hat af f ect ai r l i nes i n t oo "t enuous, r emot e or per i pher al "

a manner may survi ve preempt i on) . For exampl e, t he Cour t has dr awn

a di st i nct i on bet ween st at e- i mposed consumer pr ot ect i on st andar ds

and cl ai ms t hat an ai r l i ne br eached i t s own cont r act t er ms. Am.

Ai r l i nes, I nc. v. Wol ens, 513 U. S. 219, 232- 33 ( 1995) ( pr eempt i ng

pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai ms under t he f or mer , whi l e al l owi ng t he l at t er ) .

Numer ous cour t s have al so r ecogni zed t hat t he Feder al Avi at i on

Aut hor i t y' s savi ngs cl ause, 49 U. S. C. 40120( c) , as wel l as i t s

mandated i nsurance coverage pr ovi si on, 49 U. S. C. 41112( a) , woul d

not make sense unl ess Congr ess i nt ended cer t ai n t or t cl ai ms t o

sur vi ve pr eempt i on. I d. at 231 n. 7, 232- 33; Taj Mahal Travel v.

Del t a Ai r l i nes, I nc. , 164 F. 3d 186, 194 ( 3d Ci r . 1998) ; Char as v.

Tr ans Wor l d Ai r l i nes, I nc. , 160 F. 3d 1259, 1265 ( 9th Ci r . 1998) .

Thus, whi l e our deci si on i n Br own answer s t he "mechani sm"

quest i on, we must now t ur n t o t he "l i nkage" quest i on por t i on of t he

pr eempt i on anal ysi s and ask whet her pl ai nt i f f ' s common l aw cl ai ms

ar e suf f i ci ent l y "r el at [ ed] t o a pr i ce, r out e, or ser vi ce of an ai r

car r i er . " Br own, 720 F. 3d at 64.

-16-


17/27

Boi l ed down t o t hei r essence, pl ai nt i f f ' s cl ai ms asser t

t hat Egypt Ai r f ai l ed t o r espond appr opr i at el y to numer ous " r ed

f l ags" when i t al l owed El - Nady t o boar d a f l i ght t o Egypt wi t h t he

t wo abducted chi l dr en. Speci f i cal l y, pl ai nt i f f s mai nt ai n t hat

Egypt Ai r shoul d have been al er t ed by the di f f er i ng surnames of t he

mot her and chi l dr en; t he "emer gency" nat ur e of t he t i cket s,

pur chased i n cash on t he day of t he f l i ght ; t he f act t hat Egypt i s

not a si gnat or y t o t he Hague Convent i on, enhanci ng t he r i sk of

i nt er nat i onal abduct i on; and t he f act t hat t he chi l dr en' s Egypt i an

passpor t s di d not cont ai n U. S. ent r y vi sas. Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat

due t o t he pr esence of t hese "r ed f l ags, " Egypt Ai r shoul d have been

al er t ed t o t he possi bi l i t y of an i nt er nat i onal chi l d abduct i on and

ei t her i nvest i gat ed f ur t her , r equi r ed a si gned par ent al consent

f orm, or had some pr ocedur e i n pl ace t o deal wi t h t hese t ypes of

ci r cumst ances.

I n determi ni ng whether t hese cl ai ms ar e pr eempt ed by the

ADA, we f i r st t ur n t o t he t ext of t he st at ut e. I t i s pl ai n t hat

t he cl ai ms ar e nei t her r el at ed t o a "pr i ce" or "r out e" i n anyt hi ng

mor e t han t he most t angent i al of ways. The st i cki ng poi nt , t hen,

i s "servi ce. "

We have pr evi ousl y r ecogni zed a ci r cui t spl i t on t he

i nt er pr et at i on of t he wor d "servi ce. " Di Fi or e, 646 F. 3d at 88 n. 9.

Most not abl y, t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t i n Char as nar r owl y i nt er pr et ed

"ser vi ce" to t r ack cl osel y t o "pr i ce" and "r out e. " I n t hei r

-17-


18/27

opi ni on, "ser vi ce" r ef er r ed t o t he "f r equency and schedul i ng of

t r anspor t at i on, and t o t he sel ect i on of mar ket s t o and f r om whi ch

t r anspor t at i on i s pr ovi ded" as i n an ai r l i ne pr ovi di ng ser vi ce

" f r omTucson t o New Yor k t wi ce a day. " Charas, 160 F. 3d at 1265- 66.

We decl i ne t o f ol l ow t hi s appr oach. As we not ed i n

Di Fi or e, t he Supr eme Cour t ' s opi ni on i n Rowe v. N. H. Mot or

Tr anspor t Ass' n, 552 U. S. 364 ( 2008) , has t r eated ser vi ce mor e

expansi vel y. 11 I n Rowe, t he Cour t hel d t hat Mai ne' s at t empt t o

r egul at e t obacco shi ppi ng i n t he st at e by requi r i ng numer ous

del i ver y ver i f i cat i on pr ocedur es subst ant i al l y i mpact ed t he

"del i ver y ser vi ces" of f er ed by ai r and mot or vehi cl e car r i er s. I d.

at 373. I n our vi ew, Rowe f or ecl oses t he Char as i nt er pr et at i on of

"servi ce" as a t er mcl osel y r el at ed t o pr i ces and r out es. See Ai r

Tr anspor t Ass' n of Am. v. Cuomo, 520 F. 3d 218, 223 ( 2d Ci r . 2008)

( agr eei ng t hat Rowe "necessar i l y def i ned ' servi ce' t o extend beyond

pr i ces, schedul es, or i gi ns and dest i nat i ons") . We al so bel i eve

t hat t he Char as i nt er pr et at i on ski r t s t he l ong- r ecogni zed canon of

avoi di ng super f l uousness. Cor l ey v. Uni t ed St at es, 556 U. S. 303,

314 ( 2009) . By nar r owl y i nt er pr et i ng "ser vi ce" t o r el at e t o

schedul i ng and "ser vi ce t o" cer t ai n dest i nat i ons, t he Char as

opi ni on does l i t t l e t o di st i ngui sh "ser vi ce" f r om "r out e. "

11 The Cour t i n Rowe was i nt er pr et i ng t he pr eempt i on pr ovi si on oft he Feder al Avi at i on Admi ni st r at i on Aut hor i zat i on Act of 1994, 49U. S. C. 14501( c) , whi ch del i ber at el y copi ed t he exact pr eempt i onpr ovi si on of t he ADA. Rowe, 552 U. S. at 370. As such, t he Cour t ' si nt er pr et at i on of t he FAAAA pr eempt i on pr ovi si on gui des us her e.

-18-


19/27

The broader vi ew of "ser vi ce, " whi ch pre- dat es Rowe i n

our si st er ci r cui t s, i ncl udes i t ems such as t he handl i ng of

l uggage, i n- f l i ght f ood and bever age pr ovi si ons, t i cket i ng, and

boar di ng pr ocedur es. See, e. g. , Cuomo, 520 F. 3d at 223; Travel Al l

Over t he Wor l d, I nc. v. Ki ngdomof Saudi Ar abi a, 73 F. 3d 1423, 1433

( 7t h Ci r . 1996) ; Hodges v. Del t a Ai r l i nes, I nc. , 44 F. 3d 334, 336-

38 ( 5t h Ci r . 1995) . We i mpl i ci t l y adopt ed t hi s appr oach shor t l y

af t er i t was i ni t i al l y advanced by t he Fi f t h Ci r cui t i n Hodges.

See Chukwu v. Bd. of Di r s. Br i t i sh Ai r ways, 889 F. Supp. 12, 13 ( D.

Mass. 1995) , af f ' d mem. sub nom. Azubuko v. Bd. of Di r s. Br i t i sh

Ai r ways, 101 F. 3d 106 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) ( unpubl i shed t abl e deci si on) .

Our most r ecent deci si ons on t he " l i nkage" quest i on, Di Fi or e and

Br own, hel d t hat cl ai ms brought by l uggage handl ers agai nst an

ai r l i ne wer e pr eempt ed by t he ADA, not i ng t hat t hey coul d f ai r l y

r el at e t o ei t her a "pr i ce" or "ser vi ce" of t he ai r l i ne. Di Fi or e,

646 F. 3d at 88; see Br own, 720 F. 3d at 71.

Al t hough t hi s case pr esent s a set of f act s not squar el y

addr essed i n t he cases ci t ed above, we bel i eve t hese cl ai ms ar e

si mi l ar l y cover ed by t he t er m" ser vi ce. " Pl ai nt i f f ' s compl ai nt i s

essent i al l y t hat Egypt Ai r al l owed El - Nady t o boar d t he ai r cr af t

wi t hout adequat el y i nvest i gat i ng her pr e- f l i ght document at i on and

st at us. Numer ous ci r cui t s have hel d t hat wher e an ai r l i ne deni ed

boar di ng, t he cl ai ms were pr eempt ed. See, e. g. , Onoh v. Nw.

Ai r l i nes, I nc. , 613 F. 3d 596, 599- 600 ( 5t h Ci r . 2010) ; Smi t h v.

-19-


20/27

Comai r , 134 F. 3d 254, 259 ( 4t h Ci r . 1998) ; see al so Chukwu, 889 F.

Supp. at 13- 14. Whet her t he ai r l i ne i s al l owi ng a passenger ont o

t he pl ane or pr event i ng a passenger f r om boar di ng, t hat

det er mi nat i on t akes pl ace dur i ng t he company' s t i cket i ng, check- i n

and boar di ng pr ocedur es. See Chukwu, 889 F. Supp. at 14 ( "The gi st

of [ pl ai nt i f f ' s] compl ai nt i s t hat [ t he ai r l i ne] wr ongf ul l y

pr event ed hi s br ot her f r om boar di ng a f l i ght , a pr ocess uni quel y

wi t hi n t he ser vi ce pr ovi ded and cont r ol l ed by ai r car r i er s. ") . We

t hus concl ude that t he t i cket i ng, check- i n and boar di ng pr ocedur es

at i ssue her e const i t ut e a "ser vi ce" f or t he pur poses of t he ADA i n

accor dance wi t h our br oader vi ew of t he t er m "servi ce. "

Pl ai nt i f f s pr ot est t hat t he deci si on t o al l ow boar di ng i s

nonet hel ess t oo " t enuous, r emot e, or per i pher al , " Mor al es, 504 U. S.

at 390, i n i t s rel at i onshi p t o t he pr ovi si on of a ser vi ce. We

di sagr ee. The Supr eme Cour t has not ed t he br eadt h of t he " r el at i ng

t o" l anguage and t he br oad i nt er pr et at i on i t has af f or ded t he

phr ase i n cases i nt er pr et i ng t he si mi l ar l y- wor ded Empl oyee

Ret i r ement I ncome Secur i t y Act . I d. at 383- 84; see Shaw v. Del t a

Ai r Li nes, I nc. , 463 U. S. 85, 96 ( 1983) . Ul t i mat el y, Congr ess' s

i nt ent i n enact i ng t he ADA and i t s preempt i on pr ovi si on was

ensur i ng "maxi mumr el i ance on compet i t i ve market f orces" and " t hat

t he St at es woul d not undo f eder al der egul at i on wi t h r egul at i on of

t hei r own. " Mor al es, 504 U. S. at 378. As such, st at e l aw may be

pr eempt ed even i f i t i s i ndi r ect l y or gener al l y appl i cabl e, and

-20-


21/27

pr eempt i on i s f avor ed wher e t he l aw woul d have a "s i gni f i cant

i mpact " on Congr ess' s der egul at or y goal s. Rowe, 552 U. S. at 370-

71.

I n t hi s case, t he di st r i ct cour t assumed t hat t he cl ai ms

i n quest i on i mpl i cat ed "ser vi ces, " but i t f el t t hat t he cl ai ms di d

not " r el at e t o" t he "ser vi ces" s t r ongl y enough. Bower v. El - Nady,

847 F. Supp. 2d 266, 272 ( D. Mass. 2012) . I t vi ewed t he negl i gence

cl ai ms as bei ng si mi l ar t o per sonal i nj ur y t or t cl ai ms, whi ch

near l y al l cour t s agr ee ar e not pr eempt ed by t he ADA. I d. at 272-

73. I n r eachi ng t hi s concl usi on, t he cour t r el i ed heavi l y on

Gi l l v. J et Bl ue Ai r ways Cor p. , 836 F. Supp. 2d 33, 41- 43 ( D. Mass.

2011) , whi ch hel d t hat a per sonal i nj ur y l awsui t was not pr eempt ed

despi t e i t s i mpl i cat i ng t he "servi ce" of boar di ng because i t di d

not suf f i ci ent l y r el at e t o Congr ess' s der egul at or y goal s. The

di str i ct cour t f el t t hat i n t hi s case, al t hough pl ai nt i f f ' s success

mi ght have an "i nci dent al i mpact " on t he ai r l i ne' s t i cket i ng

pr ocedur es, i t woul d be a gener al i zed one t hat woul d not put any

one ai r l i ne at a compet i t i ve di sadvant age. Bower , 847 F. Supp. 2d

at 273.

We di sagr ee. Al t hough t he di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y not ed

t hat per sonal i nj ur y cl ai ms ar e gener al l y not pr eempt ed by t he ADA,

t her e ar e numerous di st i nct i ons bet ween per sonal i nj ur y cl ai ms and

t he cl ai ms pr esent i n t hi s case. Fi r st , t he f act t hat t he ADA

i nsur ance pr ovi si on mandat es t hat ai r l i nes car r y suf f i ci ent

-21-


22/27

i nsur ance t o pay "f or bodi l y i nj ur y to, or deat h of " i t s passenger s

suggest s t hat Congr ess never i nt ended to pr eempt per sonal i nj ur y

cl ai ms. See 49 U. S. C. 41112( a) . Pl ai nt i f f s do not al l ege bodi l y

i nj ur y her e, however .

Second, nei t her a t or t cl ai m l i ke t he one at i ssue i n

Gi l l , nor t he t ype of mi nor br each of cont r act cl ai m at i ssue i n

Wol ens12 gi ves r i se to t he t ype of pat chwor k st at e r egul at i ons t hat

t he ADA was i nt ended t o di ssol ve. Much l i ke t he l aws agai nst

gambl i ng and pr ost i t ut i on ref er enced as " t enuous" i n Mor al es,

st andar d common l aw dut i es of car e have l i t t l e ef f ect on an

ai r l i nes' day- t o- day oper at i ons. See Mor al es, 504 U. S. at 390.

Accor di ngl y, t he ADA of f er s l i t t l e r eason t o t r eat a passenger who

sl i ps and f al l s whi l e depl ani ng di f f er ent l y t han one who sl i ps and

f al l s i n a r est aur ant . 13 Wer e we t o hol d t hat Egypt Ai r vi ol at ed i t s

common l aw t or t dut y i n thi s case, however , we woul d be i mposi ng a

12 I n Wol ens, t he di sput e cent er ed on t he t er ms of an ai r l i ne' ssel f - i mposed f r equent - f l yer pr ogr am. The Cour t r el i ed on t hel i mi t ed nat ur e of t he cont r act at i ssue i n hol di ng t hat t he ADA' spr eempt i on cl ause di d not extend t o a br each of cont r act cl ai m"seeki ng r ecover y sol el y f or t he ai r l i ne' s al l eged br each of i t sown, sel f - i mposed under t aki ngs. " Wol ens, 513 U. S. at 228. I ncont r ast , pl ai nt i f f s her e seek t o chal l enge a host of t i cket i ng andboar di ng pr ocedur es, br i ngi ng t hem wel l beyond t he l i mi t at i ons oft he so- cal l ed "Wol ens except i on. "

13 Those t ypes of i nj ur i es woul d mor e pr oper l y f al l under t hepur vi ew of t he Convent i on f or t he Uni f i cat i on of Cer t ai n Rul esRel at i ng t o I nt er nat i onal Tr anspor t at i on by Ai r , Oct . 12, 1929, 49St at . 3000, 137 L. N. T. S. 11 ( ent er ed i nt o f or ce Feb. 13, 1933)[ her ei naf t er War saw Convent i on] , see McCar t hy v. Nw. Ai r l i nes,I nc. , 56 F. 3d 313, 316- 18 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) , as amended by theMont r eal Convent i on.

-22-


23/27

f undament al l y new set of obl i gat i ons on ai r l i nes under t he rubr i c

of " dut y of car e. " These woul d i ncl ude hei ght ened and

qual i t at i vel y di f f er ent pr ocedur es f or t he booki ng and boar di ng of

cer t ai n passenger s on cer t ai n f l i ght s. To def eat Congr essi onal

i nt ent t o pr eempt , a mer e ref er ence t o a dut y of car e wi l l not

suf f i ce. I t i s t he nat ur e and ext ent of t hat dut y whi ch al t er s t he

anal ysi s. We bel i eve t he Thi r d Ci r cui t st at ed t he i ssue wel l when

i t sai d " t he pr oper i nqui r y i s whether a common l aw t ort r emedy

f r ust r at es der egul at i on by i nt er f er i ng wi t h compet i t i on t hr ough

publ i c ut i l i t y- st yl e r egul at i on. When st at e l aw does not have a

r egul at or y ef f ect , i t i s ' t oo t enuous, r emot e or per i pher al ' t o be

pr eempt ed. " Taj Mahal Tr avel , I nc. , 164 F. 3d at 194 ( quot i ng

Mor al es, 504 U. S. at 390) .

Pl ai nt i f f s, however , suggest t hat t he pr oper anal ysi s

r el ates t o the economi c i mpact t hat t he l aws woul d have on t he

ai r l i nes. The di st r i ct cour t seemed t o agr ee, st at i ng t hat " i t i s

di f f i cul t t o i magi ne why any one ai r l i ne woul d be put at a

compet i t i ve di sadvant age wi t h ot her s subj ect t o t he same rul es. "

We do not see t hi s as t he cor r ect anal ysi s post - Rowe. 14 As we have

r ecent l y recogni zed, t he ADA pr eempt s l aws r egul at i ng t he

14 Even i f t he compet i t i ve ef f ect on t he ai r l i nes was not t he wr ongf ocus, Egypt Ai r ar guabl y woul d f eel t he br unt of Bower ' s proposedr egul at i ons, i ncl udi ng speci al i zed t r ai ni ng f or t i cket agent s andl i mi t ed ki osk check- i ns f or si ngl e par ent s t r avel i ng wi t h chi l dr en,mor e t han t he aver age ai r l i ne by vi r t ue of i t s pr i mar i l y f l yi ng t oa non- Hague Convent i on si gnat ory count r y.

-23-


24/27

oper at i ons of ai r l i nes "whet her at hi gh cost or l ow. " Di Fi or e, 646

F. 3d at 88 ( expl ai ni ng t hat skycaps' at t empt s t o change t he

ai r l i nes' si gnage and messagi ng, at l i t t l e cost t o t he ai r l i ne, ar e

" j ust what Congr ess di d not want t he st at es regul at i ng") . I n our

i nt er pr et at i on, Rowe shows t hat non- economi c l aws t hat nonet hel ess

have a si gni f i cant r egul at or y ef f ect on t he ai r l i nes ar e pr eempt ed.

I d. at 86 ( " [ P] r eempt i on mi ght have been conf i ned t o st at e l aws

t hat t hemsel ves ai med at economi c r egul at i on as opposed t o ot her

st at e i nt er est s, but t hat cour se t oo has been f or ecl osed. " )

( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) ( ci t i ng Rowe, 552 U. S. at 373- 76) .

Pl ai nt i f f s per si st , ar gui ng t hat Rowe onl y t al ks about

economi c mot i vat i on and t hat economi c i mpact i s s t i l l t he cor r ect

anal ysi s. We do not agr ee t hat t he Cour t ' s f ocus was so nar r ow.

The Cour t i n Rowe was concer ned wi t h whet her t he r egul at i on i mposed

on t he ai r l i ne ser vi ce obl i gat i ons beyond what t he mar ket r equi r ed.

The Cour t st at ed t hat t he l aw i n quest i on woul d r equi r e car r i er s t o

pr ovi de ser vi ces not di ct at ed by the mar ket , but "even wer e t hat

not so, t he l aw woul d f r eeze i nt o pl ace ser vi ces t hat car r i er s

mi ght pr ef er t o di scont i nue i n t he f ut ur e. " Rowe, 552 U. S. at 372.

Si gni f i cant l y, Rowe recogni zed t hat Mai ne' s at t empt s t o

i mpose ver i f i cat i on dut i es on t obacco del i ver er s wer e pr eempt ed.

The anal ogous concl usi on woul d be t hat common l aw enf or cement whi ch

woul d ul t i mat el y i mpose addi t i onal ver i f i cat i on dut i es on ai r l i nes

( i n t he busi ness of t r anspor t i ng peopl e, not t obacco) i s al so

-24-


25/27

pr eempt ed. Cf . Rowe, 552 U. S. at 373 ( " [ t ] o al l ow Mai ne t o i nsi st

t hat t he car r i er s pr ovi de a speci al checki ng syst em woul d al l ow

ot her St at es t o do t he same. [ Thi s] . . . coul d easi l y l ead t o a

pat chwor k of st at e ser vi ce- det er mi ni ng l aws, r ul es, and r egul at i ons

. . . i nconsi st ent wi t h Congr ess' s maj or l egi sl at i ve ef f or t t o

l eave such deci si ons . . . t o t he compet i t i ve mar ket pl ace. " ) .

Pl ai nt i f f s at t empt t o f r ame t hei r cl ai ms as doi ng no mor e

t han appl yi ng gener al t or t pr i nci pl es t o t he ai r l i nes. I n

pl ai nt i f f ' s est i mat i on, t he dut y t o i nvest i gat e f or abduct i ons

woul d onl y be t r i gger ed when an ai r l i ne i s f aced wi t h speci f i c

ci r cumst ances. Much l i ke ai r l i nes ar e const r ai ned by gener al t or t

pr i nci pl es i n deal i ng wi t h dr unk and di sor der l y passenger s,

pl ai nt i f f s cl ai m, t he ai r l i nes must exhi bi t a basi c dut y of car e i n

pr event i ng chi l d abduct i ons. We ar e unconvi nced by thi s argument .

Unl i ke deal i ng wi t h dr unks, t aki ng gener al car e t o avoi d depl ani ng

i nj ur i es, or pr event i ng gambl i ng/ pr ost i t ut i on r i ngs f r ombei ng r un

out of t hei r ai r por t l ounges, pl ai nt i f f ' s cl ai ms woul d i mpose

dut i es on t he ai r l i nes beyond what i s expect ed of near l y ever y

ot her busi ness. As t he di st r i ct cour t f ound when di smi ssi ng

pl ai nt i f f ' s tor t cl ai ms, pl ai nt i f f ' s set of "r ed f l ags" are not

near l y as r ar e as t hey cont end. 15 See Bower , 847 F. Supp. 2d at

15 Accor di ng t o Egypt Ai r , passenger s f l y on an "emer gency" basi s,of t en payi ng wi t h cash, ever y day, and a par ent t r avel s wi t hchi l dr en but no spouse pr esent on near l y ever y f l i ght . I n t hi scase speci f i cal l y, El - Nady di d not t ake Bower ' s l ast name i naccordance wi t h Egypt i an nami ng cust oms, meani ng Egypt Ai r sees

-25-


26/27

277- 78. I n ot her wor ds, i t was not at al l obvi ous t hat an

abduct i on was t aki ng pl ace, as i t i s when an i nebr i at ed passenger

causes a scene. Mor eover , i nt er nat i onal chi l d abduct i ons t end t o

uni quel y i mpact ai r l i nes, and even t hen onl y t he subset of ai r l i nes

f l yi ng t r ansnat i onal r out es, as opposed t o ot her t ypes of

busi nesses servi ng t he publ i c. Thi s i s not t r ue wi t h mor e

gener al i zed t or t cases.

Fur t her mor e, i f pl ai nt i f f s pr evai l ed, t he r esul t woul d be

exact l y what Rowe and Moral es warn agai nst : a "pat chwork" of st ate

r egul at i ons t hat ef f ect i vel y f r ust r at e Congr ess' s pur pose i n

der egul at i ng t he ai r l i nes. Rowe, 552 U. S. at 373; Mor al es, 504

U. S. at 378- 79. Wer e pl ai nt i f f s t o succeed wi t h t hei r cl ai ms, t he

r esul t woul d l i kel y f or ce i nt er nat i onal ai r l i nes depar t i ng f r om

Massachuset t s t o i nst i t ut e i nvest i gat i ve pr ocedur es, def i ne "r ed

f l ags, " and devel op pr ot ocol s t o deal wi t h i nt er nat i onal chi l d

abduct i ons. 16 Absent a successf ul case i n anot her j ur i sdi ct i on,

however , t hey woul d not have t hese same dut i es i n any other

ai r por t s.

mot her s wi t h di f f er ent l ast names f r om t hei r chi l dr en r egul ar l y.

16 Thi s i s par t i cul ar l y t r oubl i ng gi ven t hat t he i mposi t i on of

st at e l aw st andar ds on t he oper at i ons of i nt er nat i onal ai r l i nes i sa subj ect hi ghl y regul at ed under t he obl i gat i ons of var i oust r eat i es. The der egul at i on of f or ei gn ai r t r anspor t at i on i s i t sel fenshr i ned i n i nt er nat i onal obl i gat i ons of t he Uni t ed St at es. See,e. g. , 49 U. S. C. 40101( e) ; I nt er nat i onal Ai r Tr anspor t at i onCompet i t i on Act of 1979, 17, Pub. L. No. 96- 192, 94 St at . 35, 42( 1980) .

-26-


27/27

Congr ess i s awar e of t he i ssues t hat i nt er nat i onal chi l d

abduct i ons rai se wi t h r espect t o t he ai r l i nes. Shoul d Congr ess

choose t o act i n t hi s ar ea wi t h f eder al r egul at i on, i t wi l l be wi t h

f ul l knowl edge of t he economi c and non- economi c i mpact s on t he

ai r l i ne i ndust r y. Thi s i s hi ghl y pr ef er abl e t o a st at e- by- st at e

( and pot ent i al l y, j ur y- by- j ur y) det er mi nat i on of what , exact l y,

ai r l i nes must do when conf r ont ed wi t h a possi bl e abduct i on at t empt .

I n concl usi on, we hol d t hat pl ai nt i f f ' s cl ai ms, whi ch

chal l enge ai r l i ne t i cket i ng, check- i n, and boar di ng pr ocedur es,

suf f i ci ent l y r el at e t o t he ser vi ce of an ai r car r i er and ar e

t her ef ore preempted by the ADA. 17

III. Conclusion

For t he above- st at ed r easons, we af f i r m t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s di smi ssal of pl ai nt i f f ' s cl ai ms.

Affirmed.

17 Because we f i nd t hat t he cl ai ms are preempted, we need notaddr ess Bower ' s cl ai m t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n excl udi ngone of hi s exper t wi t nesses.

-27-

bower v. egyptair airlines, 1st cir. (2013)

Documents