Mitchell v. US Airways, Inc., 1st Cir. (2013)

7/26/2019 Mitchell v. US Airways, Inc., 1st Cir. (2013)

1/26

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 1543

J OSEPH BROWN ET AL. ,

Pl ai nt i f f s , Appel l ant s ,

v.

UNI TED AI RLI NES, I NC. ,

Def endant , Appel l ee.

No. 12- 2056

BEN MI TCHELL ET AL. ,

Pl ai nt i f f s , Appel l ant s ,

v.

US AI RWAYS, I NC. ,

Def endant , Appel l ee.

_____________________

APPEALS FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Wi l l i am G. Young, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Howar d, Sel ya and Thompson,Ci r cui t J udges.

Shannon Li ss- Ri or dan, wi t h whom Hi l l ar y Schwab and Li cht en &


2/26

Li ss- Ri or dan, P. C. wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant s.Scot t L. Nel son, Adi na H. Rosenbaum, and Publ i c Ci t i zen

Li t i gat i on Gr oup on br i ef f or Publ i c Ci t i zen, I nc. , ami cus cur i ae.J onat han E. Nuecht er l ei n, wi t h whom Br uce H. Rabi novi t z,

Dani el T. Deacon, and Wi l mer Cut l er Pi cker i ng Hal e and Dor r LLPwer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee Uni t ed Ai r l i nes, I nc.

Robert S. Span and St ei nbr echer & Span LLP on br i ef f orAi r l i nes f or Amer i ca, ami cus cur i ae.

Mi chael McGui nness, wi t h whomRober t Si egel , O' Mel veny & Myer sLLP, El l en C. Kear ns, J ef f r ey M. Rosi n, and Const angy, Br ooks &Smi t h LLP wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee US Ai r ways, I nc.

J ef f r ey A. Lamken, Andr ew M. Ber ni e, and Mol oLamken LLP onbr i ef f or Ai r l i nes f or Amer i ca, ami cus cur i ae.

J ul y 9, 2013


3/26

SELYA, Circuit Judge. These appeal s pose a quest i on of

f i r st i mpr essi on: Can t he pl ai nt i f f s, skycaps af f i l i at ed wi t h t wo

maj or ai r l i nes, mai nt ai n common- l aw act i ons f or unj ust enr i chment

and t or t i ous i nt er f er ence based on t he ai r l i nes' i mposi t i on and

r et ent i on of baggage- handl i ng f ees f or cur bsi de ser vi ce?

Concl udi ng, as we do, t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s' act i ons i nt r ude i nt o a

no- f l y zone demar cat ed by t he pr eempt i on pr ovi si on of t he Ai r l i ne

Der egul at i on Act ( ADA) , 49 U. S. C. 41713( b) ( 1) , we af f i r m t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s or der s of di smi ssal .

I. BACKGROUND

These consol i dat ed cases have a convol ut ed hi st or y. For

pr esent pur poses, however , a si mpl i f i ed account wi l l do.

The cases compr i se t wo put at i ve cl ass act i ons brought by

skycaps a t er m of ar t used t o descr i be "por t er s who pr ovi de

cur bsi de ser vi ce" at ai r por t s. Di Fi or e v. Am. Ai r l i nes, I nc. , 646

F. 3d 81, 82 ( 1st Ci r . ) , cer t . deni ed, 132 S. Ct . 761 ( 2011) . At

t he t i mes r el evant her et o, t he skycaps t oi l ed on behal f of ai r

car r i er s ( ei t her def endant US Ai r ways, I nc. or def endant Uni t ed

Ai r l i nes, I nc. ) .

By t r adi t i on, skycaps' r emuner at i on depended l ar gel y on

t i ps. I n t he mi ddl e of t he l ast decade, however , t he def endant s,

act i ng i ndependent l y and at di f f er ent t i mes, each i nt r oduced a

$2. 00 per bag f ee f or cur bsi de ser vi ce f or depar t i ng passenger s at

- 3-


4/26

ai r por t s. These baggage- handl i ng f ees di d not i nur e t o t he benef i t

of t he skycaps.

I nvoki ng di ver si t y j ur i sdi ct i on, see 28 U. S. C.

1332( d) ( 2) , t he pl ai nt i f f s br ought sui t i n t he f eder al di st r i ct

cour t . They asser t ed t hat t hei r compensat i on "decr eased

dr amat i cal l y" af t er t he baggage- handl i ng f ees wer e est abl i shed, "as

some passenger s t hought t he $2. 00 charge was a mandat ory gr at ui t y,

and ot her s decl i ned vol unt ar i l y t o t i p i n addi t i on t o payi ng t he

$2. 00 char ge. " Mi t chel l v. US Ai r ways, I nc. , 858 F. Supp. 2d 137,

148 ( D. Mass. 2012) . Rel at edl y, t he pl ai nt i f f s f aul t ed t he

ai r l i nes f or "not adequat el y not i f y[ i ng] passenger s t hat t hi s

char ge was not a gr at ui t y. " I d.

The pl ai nt i f f s made a number of st at e l aw cl ai ms premi sed

on t hese averment s. We r ehear se here onl y t he cl ai ms that have

cont i nui ng r el evance: unj ust enr i chment and t or t i ous i nt er f er ence

wi t h advant ageous r el at i ons. 1

I n t he ear l y goi ng, t hi s l i t i gat i on encount er ed st r ong

headwi nds, f uel ed by a byzant i ne ser i es of pr ocedur al t wi st s and

t ur ns. Thi s hi st or y need not concer n us, so we f ast - f or war d t o t he

poi nt at whi ch t he ADA pr eempt i on i ssue came t o t he f ore. The

1 The pl ai nt i f f s i n t hese cases seek to r epr esent nat i onwi decl asses of skycaps, not j ust skycaps who wor k i n Massachuset t s.They asser t t hat t he common- l aw pr i nci pl es on whi ch t hey r el y ar euni ver sal , not st at e- speci f i c. For ease i n exposi t i on, wesomet i mes r ef er t o Massachuset t s case l aw t o exempl i f y thosepr i nci pl es.

- 4-


5/26

di st r i ct cour t hear d or al ar gument and di smi ssed t he unj ust

enr i chment and t or t i ous i nt er f er ence cl ai ms as pr eempt ed. See i d.

at 148- 59. These t i mel y appeal s ensued.

II. ANALYSIS

The pl ai nt i f f s' appeal s hi nge on t he proposi t i on t hat t he

ADA does not pr eempt common- l aw cl ai ms, r egardl ess of t he

r el at i onshi p bet ween t hose cl ai ms and an ai r car r i er ' s pr i ces,

r out es, or ser vi ces. The di st r i ct cour t r ej ected t hi s pr oposi t i on

as a mat t er of st at ut or y const r uct i on, and we r evi ew i t s deci si on

de novo. See Di Fi or e, 646 F. 3d at 85; Buck v. Am. Ai r l i nes, I nc. ,

476 F. 3d 29, 32 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) .

The Supremacy Cl ause si t s at t he epi cent er of every

pr eempt i on quest i on. See Gi bbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. ( 9 Wheat . ) 1,

210- 11 ( 1824) . The Cl ause i nst r uct s t hat f eder al l aw "shal l be t he

supr eme Law of t he Land . . . any Thi ng i n t he Const i t ut i on or Laws

of any St at e t o t he Cont r ar y not wi t hst andi ng. " U. S. Const . ar t .

VI , cl . 2. A st at e l aw t hat of f ends t he Supr emacy Cl ause " i s a

nul l i t y. " Mass. Ass' n of Heal t h Mai nt . Or gs. v. Rut har dt , 194 F. 3d

176, 178 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) .

Federal pr eempt i on of st ate l aw may occur ei t her

expr essl y or by i mpl i cat i on. Gr ant ' s Dai r y - Me. , LLC v. Comm' r of

Me. Dep' t of Agr i c. , Food & Rur al Res. , 232 F. 3d 8, 15 ( 1st Ci r .

2000) . The f act t hat t he st at ut e at i ssue her e cont ai ns a speci f i c

pr eempt i on cl ause, 49 U. S. C. 41713( b) ( 1) , st r eaml i nes our

- 5-


6/26

i nqui r y. The i ssue at hand i s one of expr ess pr eempt i on. But even

expr ess pr eempt i on i s not sel f - el uci dat i ng: i t nonet hel ess f al l s t o

t he cour t s to i dent i f y whi ch st at e l aws ar e pr eempt ed. See

Medt r oni c, I nc. v. Lohr , 518 U. S. 470, 484 ( 1996) ; Rut har dt , 194

F. 3d at 179.

Congr essi onal i nt ent i s t he pr i nci pal r esour ce t o be used

i n def i ni ng t he scope and extent of an expr ess pr eempt i on cl ause.

See Gr ant ' s Dai r y, 232 F. 3d at 14; Rut har dt , 194 F. 3d at 179. I n

t hi s endeavor , we l ook t o bot h t he t ext and cont ext of t he

par t i cul ar cl ause. See Rut har dt , 194 F. 3d at 179. We al so may

consi der t he cl ause' s pur pose and hi st or y, as wel l as t he st r uct ur e

of t he st at ut or y scheme i n whi ch i t i s housed. See Lohr , 518 U. S.

at 486; UPS, I nc. v. Fl or es- Gal ar za, 318 F. 3d 323, 334 ( 1st Ci r .

2003) .

Our st ar t i ng poi nt i s t ext ual . See CSX Tr ansp. , I nc. v.

East erwood, 507 U. S. 658, 664 ( 1993) . The ADA pr eempt i on pr ovi si on

r eads i n per t i nent par t : "[ 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 2 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 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 . . . . " 49 U. S. C. 41713( b) ( 1) . We must ef f ect uat e t he

pl ai n meani ng of t hi s l anguage "unl ess t her e i s good r eason t o

bel i eve Congress i ntended t he l anguage t o have some more

r est r i ct i ve meani ng. " Ci pol l one v. Li gget t Gr oup, I nc. , 505 U. S.

- 6-


7/26

504, 521 ( 1992) ( pl ur al i t y opi ni on) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) ; see Mor al es v. Tr ans Wor l d Ai r l i nes, I nc. , 504 U. S. 374,

383 (1992) .

Reduced to bar e essence, t he quest i on bef or e us i s

whether t he quoted l anguage pr eempt s t he pl ai nt i f f s' common- l aw

cl ai ms. Gi ven t he wor di ng of t he ADA pr eempt i on pr ovi si on, t hi s

quest i on br eaks down i nt o t wo sub- quest i ons. The f i r st sub-

quest i on asks whether t he arguabl y pr eempt ed 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. " The second sub- quest i on asks 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 . " Put i n shor t hand, t he f i r st sub- quest i on f ocuses on t he

mechani sm t hr ough whi ch t he cl ai m i s pr ef er r ed; t he second sub-

quest i on f ocuses on t he l i nkage bet ween t he cl ai m and t he cor e

act i vi t i es of t he r egul at ed i ndust r y. We addr ess t hese t wo sub-

quest i ons separ at el y, but i n r ever se or der .

Li nkage i s an open- and- shut mat t er here. For ADA

pr eempt i on t o t hr i ve, t he st at e l aw, r egul at i on, or ot her pr ovi si on

sought t o be enf or ced must " r el at e[ ] t o a pr i ce, r out e, or ser vi ce

of an ai r car r i er . " 49 U. S. C. 41713( b) ( 1) . Our deci si on i n

Di Fi or e ( a case t hat ar ose out of a r emar kabl y si mi l ar set of

f act s) concl usi vel y r esol ves t hi s poi nt .

I n Di Fi or e, skycap pl ai nt i f f s al l eged t hat af t er t he

def endant ai r l i ne "began char gi ng passenger s a f ee of $2 f or each

- 7-


8/26

bag checked wi t h [ skycaps, ] . . . passenger s mi st ook t he f ee f or a

mandat or y gr at ui t y f or t he skycaps and st opped t i ppi ng. " 646 F. 3d

at 82. We hel d pr eempt ed t he pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai ms under t he

Massachuset t s Ti ps Act , Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, 152A. See

Di Fi or e, 646 F. 3d at 88- 90. As par t of t hi s hol di ng, we concl uded

t hat an ai r l i ne' s "conduct i n ar r angi ng f or t r anspor t at i on of bags

at cur bsi de i nt o t he ai r l i ne t er mi nal en r out e t o t he l oadi ng

f aci l i t i es i s i t sel f a part of t he ' ser vi ce' ref err ed t o i n t he

[ ADA pr eempt i on pr ovi si on] , and t he ai r l i ne' s ' pr i ce' i ncl udes

char ges f or such anci l l ar y ser vi ces as wel l as t he f l i ght i t sel f . "

I d. at 87. Thus, a st at e l aw t hat penal i zes t he i mposi t i on of

baggage- handl i ng f ees at ai r por t s "di r ect l y r egul at es how an

ai r l i ne ser vi ce i s per f or med and how i t s pr i ce i s di spl ayed t o

cust omer s. " I d. at 88.

Di Fi or e answer s t he l i nkage sub- quest i on f or us. Our

hol di ng t her e si gni f i es t hat t he enf or cement of a st at e l aw,

r egul at i on, or ot her pr ovi si on i n a way t hat mat er i al l y af f ect s an

ai r car r i er ' s i mposi t i on of baggage- handl i ng f ees r el at es t o bot h

an ai r car r i er ' s pr i ces and ser vi ces. That hol di ng, uni mpeached by

any super veni ng aut hor i t y, i s bi ndi ng i n t hi s l i t i gat i on. See,

e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Wogan, 938 F. 2d 1446, 1449 ( 1st Ci r . 1991)

( expl ai ni ng "t hat i n a mul t i - panel ci r cui t , pr i or panel deci si ons

are bi ndi ng upon newl y const i t ut ed panel s i n t he absence of

- 8-


9/26

super veni ng aut hor i t y suf f i ci ent t o war r ant di sr egar d of

est abl i shed pr ecedent " ) .

The r eason why Di Fi or e does not end our j ourney i s

because t he deci si on t her e tur ned ent i r el y on t he l i nkage sub-

quest i on. See 646 F. 3d at 86- 89. The mechani sm sub- quest i on was

not i n i ssue because t he pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai ms depended on posi t i ve

l aw i n t he f or mof a st at e st at ut e ( t he Ti ps Act ) . 2 Here, however ,

t he cl ai ms pressed by t he pl ai nt i f f s on appeal do not depend on a

st at e st at ut e; r at her , t hey ar e f ounded on the common l aw.

Bui l di ng on t hi s di st i nct i on, t he pl ai nt i f f s cont end t hat common

l aw i s not a mechani sm t hat can be pr eempt ed under t he ADA

pr eempt i on cl ause; t hat i s, t hat common l aw i s not 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"

wi t hi n t he pur vi ew of t he ADA pr eempt i on cl ause. Di Fi or e di d not

addr ess thi s i ssue. Accor di ngl y, t hi s case r equi r es us to del ve

i nt o t hat por t i on of t he ADA pr eempt i on cl ause decl ar i ng t hat no

st at e may "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. " 49 U. S. C. 41713( b) ( 1) .

I n an ef f or t t o scor e an ear l y knockout , t he pl ai nt i f f s

poi nt t o the Supr eme Cour t ' s s t at ement t hat t he use of " l aw" and/ or

" r egul at i on" i n a pr eempt i on pr ovi si on, pr eceded by an i ndef i ni t e

2 To be sure, t he Di Fi or e pl ai nt i f f s al so mount ed a common- l awt or t i ous i nt er f er ence cl ai m. But t he panel concl uded t hat , i n t heci r cumst ances of t he case, al l of t he pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai ms "r est [ ed]cr i t i cal l y" on whet her t he Ti ps Act was pr eempt ed. Di Fi or e, 646F. 3d at 89.

- 9-


10/26

ar t i cl e, r ef er s onl y t o st at e posi t i ve l aw. See Spr i et sma v.

Mer cur y Mar i ne, 537 U. S. 51, 63- 64 ( 2002) . But t hi s i s not a

knockout bl ow; t he ADA pr eempt i on pr ovi si on unl i ke t he pr ovi si on

at i ssue i n Spr i et sma, see 46 U. S. C. 4306 goes beyond a bar e

r ef er ence t o st at e l aws and r egul at i ons. The ADA al so r ef er s to

"ot her provi si on[ s] havi ng t he f or ce and ef f ect of l aw. " Thus, our

i nqui r y r educes t o whet her t hi s addi t i onal l anguage encompasses

st at e common l aw.

Seen i n t hi s l i ght , we t hi nk t hat a mor e hel pf ul

pr ecedent i s t he Supr eme Cour t ' s opi ni on i n Amer i can Ai r l i nes, I nc.

v. Wol ens, 513 U. S. 219 ( 1995) . There, t he Supr eme Cour t st ated,

al bei t i n di ct um, t hat t he wor ds " havi ng t he f or ce and ef f ect of

l aw" ar e "most nat ur al l y r ead t o r ef er t o bi ndi ng st andar ds of

conduct t hat oper at e i r r espect i ve of any pr i vat e agr eement . " I d.

at 229 n. 5 ( al t er at i on and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . I t

cannot be gai nsai d t hat common l aw f unct i ons as a set of bi ndi ng

st andar ds of conduct .

Wol ens i s not a wai f i n t he wi l der ness. I n a r ecent case

i nt er pr et i ng t he pr eempt i on pr ovi si on of t he Feder al Avi at i on

Admi ni st r at i on Aut hor i zat i on Act of 1994 ( FAAAA) , 49 U. S. C.

14501( c) ( 1) a pr ovi si on t hat st ands i n par i mat er i a wi t h t he

pr eempt i on pr ovi si on of t he ADA, see Di Fi or e, 646 F. 3d at 86 n. 4

t he Cour t t ook an expansi ve appr oach t o t he meani ng of such

l anguage. See Am. Tr ucki ng Ass' ns, I nc. v. Ci t y of Los Angel es,

- 10-


11/26

___ S. Ct . ___ ( 2013) [ No. 11- 798, 2013 WL 2631059] . Ther e, t he

Cour t hel d t hat t he FAAAA pr eempt ed cer t ai n cont r actual

r equi r ement s, enf or ced by way of cr i mi nal penal t i es, t hat wer e

i mposed on t r ucki ng compani es by a muni ci pal port aut hor i t y. See

i d. at *3. I n so hol di ng, t he Cour t l ooked t o t he pr act i cal ef f ect

of t he requi r ement s r at her t han t hei r f or m: t hey f or ced busi nesses

"t o al t er t hei r conduct by i mpl ement i ng a cr i mi nal pr ohi bi t i on. "

I d. at *6.

Thi s pragmat i c emphasi s on f unct i on over f or m of f er s

gui dance here. Even t hough a sui t at common l aw i s most of t en

br ought by one pr i vat e par t y agai nst anot her , t hat sui t i s backed

by t he wei ght of t he st at e j udi ci ar y enf or ci ng st at e l aw. 3 Common

l aw, l i ke posi t i ve l aw, can ef f ecti vel y st r ong- ar m r egul at ed

ent i t i es t o al t er t hei r busi ness pr acti ces. We t hi nk i t cl ear ,

t her ef or e, t hat common l aw no l ess t han posi t i ve l aw has t he

f or ce and ef f ect of l aw.

The pl ai nt i f f s per si st . They say t hat , what ever t he

i mpor t of t he phr ase "havi ng t he f or ce and ef f ect of l aw, " t he t er m

"ot her pr ovi si on, " as used i n t he phr ase " l aw, r egul at i on, or ot her

pr ovi si on, " does not i ncl ude common l aw. We do not agr ee.

3 I t makes no di f f er ence t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s i n t hi s case ar eat t empt i ng t o enf or ce st at e common l aw i n a sui t br ought i n f eder alcour t . See Ri egel v. Medt r oni c, I nc. , 552 U. S. 312, 320, 324- 25( 2008) .

- 11-


12/26

A st atut e need not use t he words "common l aw" i n or der t o

pr eempt common- l aw cl ai ms. See, e. g. , Ri egel v. Medt r oni c, I nc. ,

552 U. S. 312, 324- 25 ( 2008) ; CSX Transp. , 507 U. S. at 664;

Ci pol l one, 505 U. S. at 521- 23 & n. 22 ( pl ur al i t y opi ni on) .

Pr eempt i on of common l aw need not be i n haec ver ba.

Bot h the Supr eme Cour t and thi s cour t have consi st ent l y

gi ven a wi de i nt er pr et i ve sweep t o ADA pr eempt i on. See, e. g. ,

Wol ens, 513 U. S. at 223; Mor al es, 504 U. S. at 383- 87; Di Fi or e, 646

F. 3d at 86; Buck, 476 F. 3d at 34- 35. I n Buck, we f aced a var i at i on

of t he mechani sm sub- quest i on t hat conf r ont s us t oday. Ther e, t he

pl ai nt i f f s' compl ai nt asser t ed a gal l i mauf r y of common- l aw cl ai ms,

i ncl udi ng br each of cont r act , unj ust enr i chment , br each of an

i mpl i ed covenant of good f ai t h and f ai r deal i ng, br each of

f i duci ar y dut y, and ci vi l conspi r acy. See Buck, 476 F. 3d at 32.

Al t hough we made no par t i cul ar di st i nct i on bet ween cl ai ms r oot ed i n

posi t i ve l aw and cl ai ms r oot ed i n common l aw, we f ound that ADA

pr eempt i on f orecl osed t hese common- l aw cl ai ms. See i d. at 34- 35.

Our i nt ui t i on t hat t he "ot her pr ovi si on" l anguage

encompasses common l aw i s bol st ered by t he pur pose and hi st ory of

t he ADA pr eempt i on cl ause and t he st r uct ur e of t he st at ut or y

scheme. The evol ut i on of t he pr eempt i on pr ovi si on i nf or ms i t s

pur pose. See Lor i l l ar d Tobacco Co. v. Rei l l y, 533 U. S. 525, 542

( 2001) ( "We ar e ai ded i n our i nt er pr et at i on by consi der i ng t he

- 12-


13/26

pr edecessor pr e- empt i on pr ovi si on and t he ci r cumst ances i n whi ch

t he cur r ent l anguage was adopt ed. " ) .

Pr i or t o i t s r evi si on i n 1994, t he pr eempt i on pr ovi si on

r ead: "[ N] o St at e or pol i t i cal subdi vi si on t her eof . . . shal l

enact or enf or ce any l aw, r ul e, r egul at i on, st andar d, or ot her

pr ovi si on havi ng t he f or ce and ef f ect of l aw r el at i ng t o r at es,

r out es, or ser vi ces of any ai r car r i er . . . . " Pub. L. No. 95-

504, 4( a) , 92 St at . 1705, 1707- 08 ( 1978) . We t hi nk i t t el l i ng

t hat Congr ess used wor ds such as " r ul e" and "st andar d" t o descr i be

t he st at e l aw t hat coul d be pr eempt ed. Those wor ds t ypi cal l y

i ncl ude common l aw. See, e. g. , CSX Transp. , 507 U. S. at 664

( f i ndi ng t he phr ase "l aw, r ul e, r egul at i on, or der , or st andar d" t o

i ncl ude common l aw) ; Dr ake v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Hol di ngs, 458 F. 3d

48, 59 & n. 10 ( 2d Ci r . 2006) ( f i ndi ng t he wor ds " r ul e" and

"st andar d" t o i ncl ude common l aw) . I t i s, t her ef or e, conspi cuousl y

cl ear t hat t he pr e- 1994 ver si on of t he pr eempt i on pr ovi si on

i ncl uded common l aw as a mechani sm el i gi bl e f or pr eempt i on.

Thi s i s a hi ghl y si gni f i cant dat um. Congress amended t he

ADA i n 1994 and, as a par t of t hi s r ecodi f i cat i on, r ewor ded t he

pr eempt i on pr ovi si on. Though r eworded, t he pur pose of t he new

pr eempt i on pr ovi si on r emai ned t o "ensure that t he St ates woul d not

undo f eder al der egul at i on [ of t he ai r l i ne i ndust r y] wi t h r egul at i on

of t hei r own. " Mor al es, 504 U. S. at 378. Whi l e t he r ewor di ng di d

not r epeat t he wor ds " r ul e" and "st andar d, " t he r evi sed l anguage

- 13-


14/26

was not meant t o ef f ect any subst ant i ve change. See Wol ens, 513

U. S. at 223 n. 1; Fl or es- Gal ar za, 318 F. 3d at 334- 35 n. 17; see al so

H. R. Conf . Rep. No. 103- 677, at 83 ( 1994) , r epr i nt ed i n 1994

U. S. C. C. A. N. 1715, 1755 ( conf i r mi ng t hat Congr ess " i nt end[ ed] no

subst ant i ve change to t he pr evi ousl y enact ed pr eempt i on pr ovi si on"

and "d[ i d] not i nt end t o al t er t he br oad pr eempt i on i nt er pr et at i on

adopt ed by t he Uni t ed St ates Supr eme Cour t i n" Moral es) .

Si l houet t ed agai nst t hi s backdr op, t he onl y pl ausi bl e r eadi ng of

t he ADA pr eempt i on pr ovi si on i s t hat i t cont i nues t o pr eempt r ul es

and st andar ds and, t hus, cont i nues t o preempt common l aw. We hol d

t hat , t o t he ext ent t hat a st at e common- l aw cl ai m r el at es t o a

pr i ce, r out e, or ser vi ce of an ai r car r i er , i t i s pr eempt ed by t he

ADA.

Common sense suppor t s t hi s hol di ng. Af t er al l , cour t s

adj udi cat i ng common- l aw cl ai ms can cr eat e j ust as much uncer t ai nt y

and i nconsi st ency i n a car ef ul l y cal i br at ed f eder al r egul at or y

f r amewor k as can st at e l egi sl at ur es enact i ng st at ut es or st at e

agenci es pr omul gat i ng r egul at i ons. See, e. g. , Gei er v. Am. Honda

Mot or Co. , 529 U. S. 861, 871 ( 2000) ; Di Fi or e, 646 F. 3d at 88. I t

def i es l ogi c t o t hi nk t hat Congr ess woul d di sr egar d r eal - wor l d

consequences and gi ve di sposi t i ve ef f ect t o t he f or m of a cl ear

i nt r usi on i nt o a f eder al l y r egul at ed i ndust r y. 4 See Am. Trucki ng,

4 We not e i n passi ng t hat at l east one j ur i sdi ct i on hascodi f i ed cl ai ms f or unj ust enr i chment and t or t i ous i nt er f er ence.See P. R. Laws Ann. t i t . 31, 5121- 5127; i d. 5141. Wer e we t o

- 14-


15/26

___ S. Ct . at ___ [ 2013 WL 2631059, at *5] ( f i ndi ng preempt i on

despi t e f or mof r equi r ement i mposed when muni ci pal i t y "exer ci se[s]

cl assi c r egul at or y aut hor i t y") .

The case l aw i n ot her ci r cui t s, whi l e not preci sel y on

poi nt , i s compat i bl e wi t h our hol di ng. A number of cour t s have

f ound common- l aw cl ai ms pr eempted by t he ADA, al bei t wi t hout

expl i ci t l y r ul i ng on t he scope of t he phr ase "other pr ovi si on. "

See, e. g. , Onoh v. Nw. Ai r l i nes, I nc. , 613 F. 3d 596, 599- 601 ( 5t h

Ci r . 2010) ; Wei ss v. El Al I sr ael Ai r l i nes, 309 F. App' x 483, 484-

85 ( 2d Ci r . 2009) ( per cur i am) ; Kout sour adi s v. Del t a Ai r Li nes,

I nc. , 427 F. 3d 1339, 1344 ( 11t h Ci r . 2005) ( per cur i am) ; Weber v.

USAi r ways, I nc. , 11 F. App' x 56, 56- 58 ( 4t h Ci r . 2001) ( per

cur i am) ; Ander son v. USAi r , I nc. , 818 F. 2d 49, 57 ( D. C. Ci r . 1987) .

The cases t hat have hel d cl ai ms not preempted appear t o have been

deci ded on t he l i nkage sub- quest i on; t hat i s, t he l i t i gat ed cl ai ms

di d not r el at e t o pr i ces, r out es, or ser vi ces of an ai r car r i er .

See, e. g. , Wel l ons v. Nw. Ai r l i nes, I nc. , 165 F. 3d 493, 494- 96 ( 6t h

Ci r . 1999) ; Taj Mahal Tr avel , I nc. v. Del t a Ai r l i nes I nc. , 164 F. 3d

186, 194- 95 ( 3d Ci r . 1998) ; Char as v. Tr ans Wor l d Ai r l i nes, I nc. ,

adopt t he pl ai nt i f f s' vi ew, t he vi abi l i t y of skycaps' unj ust

enr i chment and t ort i ous i nt er f erence cl ai ms woul d depend on wheret hose cl ai ms ar ose. I n a j ur i sdi ct i on l i ke Puer t o Ri co, suchcl ai ms woul d be st atut ory and t hus preempt ed, whereas i dent i calcl ai ms, ar i si ng i n a j ur i sdi ct i on l i ke Massachuset t s, woul d not bepr eempt ed. Congr ess sur el y coul d not have i nt ended so haphazard ar esul t i n an i ndust r y t hat i nher ent l y i nvol ves const ant movementf r om stat e t o stat e.

- 15-


16/26

160 F. 3d 1259, 1261, 1265- 66 ( 9th Ci r . 1998) ( en banc) , amended by

169 F. 3d 594 ( 9t h Ci r . 1999) ( en banc) .

The onl y r epor t ed ci r cui t cour t deci si on t hat squar el y

addr esses t he quest i on of whet her t he "ot her pr ovi si on" l anguage

ext ends t o st ate common l aw answers t hat quest i on i n t he

af f i r mat i ve. I n Uni t ed Ai r l i nes, I nc. v. Mesa Ai r l i nes, I nc. , 219

F. 3d 605 ( 7t h Ci r . 2000) , t he Sevent h Ci r cui t concl uded t hat

" [ s] t at e common l aw count s as an ' ot her pr ovi si on havi ng t he f or ce

and ef f ect of l aw' f or pur poses of [ t he ADA pr eempt i on cl ause] . "

I d. at 607. We see no val i d r eason t o depar t f r omt hi s vi ew and i n

doi ng so creat e a ci r cui t spl i t .

I n t hei r sear ch f or a f r i endl y f ace i n t he crowd, t he

pl ai nt i f f s pl ace heavy rel i ance on t he deci si on i n Spi nr ad v.

Comai r , I nc. , 825 F. Supp. 2d 397 ( E. D. N. Y. 2011) . Thi s rel i ance

i s mi sl ai d: Spi nr ad t ur ned on t he di st r i ct cour t ' s concl usi on t hat

t he pl ai nt i f f ' s cl ai mwas not pr eempt ed because of l ack of l i nkage.

I n ot her wor ds, i t was i nsuf f i ci ent l y "r el at ed t o" pr i ces, r out es,

or ser vi ces. See i d. at 413- 14. The cour t ' s specul at i on about

whether or not ADA preempt i on r eaches st at e common- l aw cl ai ms i s

unhel pf ul di ct um.

The pl ai nt i f f s cr eate no f ewer t han si x pocket s of

t ur bul ence i n an ef f or t t o st eer us i n a di f f er ent di r ect i on. Thi s

t ur bul ence i s most l y hot ai r , and none of i t di sr upt s our f l i ght

path.

- 16-


17/26

As a t hr eshol d mat t er , t he pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat t he

pl ai n meani ng of t he word "provi si on" does not encompass common l aw

and, by l i ke t oken, t hat cour t s do not "enf or ce" common l aw. The

f i r st par t of t hi s pr emi se i s si mpl y wr ong. The wor d "pr ovi si on, "

t hough i nexact , i s el ast i c enough t o encompass common l aw. See,

e. g. , Vei ga v. McGee, 26 F. 3d 1206, 1215 n. 10 ( 1st Ci r . 1994)

( not i ng t hat " [ t ] her e ar e speci f i c . . . common l aw pr ovi si ons t hat

r egul at e br eaches of t he peace" ) ; Smi t h v. Pasqual et t o, 246 F. 2d

765, 769 ( 1st Ci r . 1957) ( di scussi ng "common l aw pr ovi si on" ) .

Ever yt hi ng depends on cont ext , and when r ead i n cont ext , t he word

"pr ovi si on" i n t he ADA pr eempt i on cl ause can most appr opr i at el y be

const r ued t o i ncl ude common l aw.

The second par t of t he pl ai nt i f f s' premi se i s er r ant

nonsense, whi ch we r ej ect wi t hout extended comment . Suf f i ce i t t o

say that one wonder s how t he pl ai nt i f f s expect t hei r common- l aw

cl ai ms t o be vi ndi cat ed i f not by a cour t .

The pl ai nt i f f s next seek r ef uge i n t he vener abl e

pr esumpt i on agai nst pr eempt i on. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Texas,

507 U. S. 529, 534 ( 1993) ; Rut har dt , 194 F. 3d at 179. That r ef uge

i s beyond t hei r r each.

The so- cal l ed presumpt i on agai nst preempt i on st ems f r om

t he Supr eme Cour t ' s admoni t i on "t hat st at ut es whi ch i nvade t he

common l aw are t o be r ead wi t h a pr esumpt i on f avor i ng the r etent i on

of l ong- est abl i shed and f ami l i ar pr i nci pl es, except when a

- 17-


18/26

st at ut or y pur pose t o t he cont r ar y i s evi dent . " Texas, 507 U. S. at

534 ( al t er at i ons and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Wi t h

r espect t o t he ADA, such a pur pose i s apparent and the pr esumpt i on

agai nst pr eempt i on does not appl y. See Di Fi or e, 646 F. 3d at 86;

Fl or es- Gal ar za, 318 F. 3d at 336.

Mor eover , as we not ed i n Fl or es- Gal ar za, t he pr esumpt i on

agai nst pr eempt i on "onl y ar i ses . . . i f Congr ess l egi sl at es i n a

f i el d t r adi t i onal l y occupi ed by t he st at es. " 318 F. 3d at 336. I n

mat t er s of ai r t r anspor t at i on, t he f eder al pr esence i s bot h

l ongst andi ng and per vasi ve; t hat f i el d i s si mpl y not one

t r adi t i onal l y r eserved t o t he st at es. The Supr eme Cour t has not

suggest ed t hat t he pr esumpt i on agai nst pr eempt i on shoul d be

i nt er posed i n t hat f i el d, nor has t he Cour t been hesi t ant t o gi ve

f orce t o t he ADA pr eempt i on pr ovi si on. We see no r eason t o

hesi t at e her e.

The pl ai nt i f f s' t hi r d at t empt t o st al l a f i ndi ng of

pr eempt i on i nvokes t he doct r i ne of ej usdemgener i s. Thi s doct r i ne

t eaches t hat "when a gener al t er m f ol l ows [ ] speci f i c one[ s] , t he

gener al t er m shoul d be under st ood as a ref er ence t o subj ect s aki n

t o t he one[ s] wi t h speci f i c enumer at i on. " Nor f ol k & W. Ry. Co. v.

Am. Tr ai n Di spat cher s' Ass' n, 499 U. S. 117, 129 ( 1991) . The

pl ai nt i f f s assever at e t hat , because "common l aw" i s a br oader

cat egor y t han " l aw" and " r egul at i on, " t he ADA' s "ot her pr ovi si on"

t ermi nol ogy cannot r easonabl y be underst ood t o i ncl ude common l aw.

- 18-


19/26

Thi s asseverat i on f ai l s f or at l east t hree r easons.

Fi r st , we bel i eve t hat , cat egor i cal l y speaki ng, "common l aw" i s

f ai r l y compar abl e t o "l aw" and "r egul at i on. " The t r i l ogy of

st at ut es, r egul at i ons, and common l aw compr i ses a nat ur al gr oupi ng,

wi t h each component havi ng r oughl y equal wei ght . Cf . Ci pol l one,

505 U. S. at 522 ( pl ur al i t y opi ni on) ( expl ai ni ng t hat "t he phr ase

' st at e l aw' [ ] i ncl ude[ s] common l aw as wel l as st at ut es and

r egul at i ons") .

Second, t he pr i nci pl e of ej usdem gener i s shoul d be

appl i ed onl y when i t f ur ni shes meani ngf ul i nt er pr et i ve assi st ance,

not when i t def enest r at es Congr ess' s cl ear pur pose and di scernabl e

i nt ent . See Nor f ol k, 499 U. S. at 129; Uni t ed St at es v. Al per s, 338

U. S. 680, 682 ( 1950) . Def enest r at i on woul d be t he r esul t of

appl yi ng ej usdem gener i s her e.

Thi r d, i t i s set t l ed l aw t hat cour t s shoul d st r i ve t o

br eat he l i f e i nt o ever y wor d and phr ase i n a st at ut e. See Uni t ed

St at es v. Menasche, 348 U. S. 528, 538- 39 ( 1955) ; Uni t ed St at es v.

Ven- Fuel , I nc. , 758 F. 2d 741, 751- 52 ( 1st Ci r . 1985) . Thi s

const r uct di ct at es t hat we shoul d, i f possi bl e, "gi ve meani ng t o

each el ement of t he pr e- empt i on pr ovi si on. " Lor i l l ar d Tobacco, 533

U. S. at 542. The doct r i ne of ej usdem gener i s "cannot be empl oyed

t o r ender gener al wor ds meani ngl ess. " Al per s, 338 U. S. at 682.

Under t hi s appr oach, t he t er m "other pr ovi si on" i n t he

ADA pr eempt i on cl ause must have some pur pose apar t f r omr ef err i ng

- 19-


20/26

t o t he posi t i ve enact ment s encompassed by " l aw" and "r egul at i on. "

The most obvi ous pur pose i s t hat Congress i ntended t o i ncl ude

common l aw. The pl ai nt i f f s have not of f er ed us any per suasi ve

r eason f or over l ooki ng t hi s pur pose. 5

The pl ai nt i f f s' f our t h ar gument cent er s on a st at utor y

savi ng cl ause, 49 U. S. C. 40120( c) . We pause t o pl ace t hi s cl ause

i nt o per spect i ve.

The ADA i s nest ed wi t hi n a sprawl i ng, mul t i - par t scheme

r egul at i ng avi at i on. See, e. g. , 49 U. S. C. 40101- 46507. The

savi ng cl ause appear s wi t hi n t hi s scheme, but i t i s not di r ect l y

t i ed t o t he ADA' s preempt i on pr ovi si on.

Congr ess or i gi nal l y enact ed t he savi ng cl ause as par t of

t he Ci vi l Aer onaut i cs Act of 1938, Pub. L. No. 75- 706, 1106, 52

St at . 973, 1027, and l at er r ecodi f i ed i t as par t of t he Feder al

Avi at i on Act of 1958 ( FAA) , Pub. L. No. 85- 726, 72 St at . 731. Thi s

cl ause st at es t hat "[ a] r emedy under t hi s par t i s i n addi t i on t o

any ot her r emedi es pr ovi ded by l aw. " 49 U. S. C. 40120( c) .

Despi t e t he f act t hat t he savi ng cl ause ant edat es t he pr eempt i on

cl ause and has no di r ect connect i on t o i t , t he pl ai nt i f f s asser t

5 The pl ai nt i f f s suggest t hat "ot her pr ovi si on" mi ght meansuch t hi ngs as t r avel gui del i nes and compact s bet ween ai r car r i er sand government al or quasi - government al aut hor i t i es. Thi s may bet r ue, but i t i s har d t o i magi ne t hat , i n dr af t i ng t he ADApr eempt i on cl ause, Congr ess woul d have f ocused on such rel at i vel yobscur e possi bi l i t i es whi l e i gnor i ng common l aw.

- 20-


21/26

t hat t he savi ng cl ause pr otect s agai nst t he pr eempt i on of common-

l aw cl ai ms.

Thi s asser t i on i s groundl ess . I n ADA cases, t he Supreme

Cour t has not put much st ock i n t he savi ng cl ause, di smi ssi ng i t as

"a r el i c of t he pr e- ADA/ no pr e- empt i on r egi me. " Mor al es, 504 U. S.

at 385. The Cour t r easoned t hat , gi ven t he evol ut i on and f r amework

of t he st at ut or y scheme, a "gener al ' r emedi es' savi ng cl ause cannot

be al l owed t o super sede the speci f i c subst ant i ve pr e- empt i on

pr ovi si on" of t he ADA. I d. ; see Wol ens, 513 U. S. at 232- 33.

We add a coda. The f i el d of avi at i on i s r egul at ed under

an i nt r i cat e f r amewor k of r ul es promul gat ed by the f eder al

sover ei gn, so t he Supr eme Cour t ' s r el uct ance t o accor d decr et or y

si gni f i cance t o t he savi ng cl ause i s of a pi ece wi t h t he Cour t ' s

r epeat ed r ef usal " t o gi ve br oad ef f ect t o savi ng cl auses wher e

doi ng so woul d upset [ a] car ef ul r egul at or y scheme est abl i shed by

f eder al l aw. " Gei er , 529 U. S. at 870 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) .

Thi s i s not t o say as t he pl ai nt i f f s woul d have i t

t hat r ej ect i ng t hei r ar gument i s t ant amount t o consi gni ng t he

savi ng cl ause t o t he scrap heap. As t he di st r i ct cour t ast ut el y

obser ved, when t he savi ng cl ause i s j uxt aposed wi t h t he pr eempt i on

pr ovi si on i t "ought pr oper l y be read t o car ve out al l common l aw or

st at ut or y cl ai ms not r el at ed t o an ai r l i ne' s pr i ces, r out es or

ser vi ces. " Mi t chel l , 858 F. Supp. 2d at 154.

- 21-


22/26

The cases ci t ed by t he pl ai nt i f f s i n f ur t her ance of t hei r

posi t i on l ar gel y t ur n on t he di st i nct i on not ed by the cour t bel ow.

See, e. g. , Taj Mahal Tr avel , 164 F. 3d at 194- 95; Char as, 160 F. 3d

at 1261, 1265- 66. The same di st i nct i on bet ween cl ai ms t hat ar e

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

t hat ar e not account s f or l anguage, i mpr ovi dent l y rel i ed upon by

t he pl ai nt i f f s, concer ni ng t he pr eservat i on of common- l aw cl ai ms

under t he ADA. See, e. g. , Mor al es, 504 U. S. at 390 ( expl ai ni ng

t hat "some st at e act i ons may af f ect ai r l i ne f ar es i n t oo t enuous,

r emot e, or per i pher al a manner t o have pr e- empt i ve ef f ect "

( al t er at i ons and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) ; Di Fi or e, 646

F. 3d at 87 ( " [ T]he Supr eme Cour t woul d be unl i kel y wi t h some

possi bl e qual i f i cat i ons t o f r ee ai r l i nes f r om most convent i onal

common l aw cl ai ms f or t or t . . . . ") .

We gi ve shor t shr i f t t o t he pl ai nt i f f s' i mpor t uni ng t hat

t he pr esence of a savi ng cl ause i n a st at ut e necessar i l y i mpl i es

t hat t here are numerous common- l aw cl ai ms t o be saved. I n suppor t ,

t he pl ai nt i f f s ci t e Spr i et sma and Gei er . I n t hose cases, however ,

t he savi ng cl ause speci f i cal l y appl i ed t o t he pr eempt i on pr ovi si on

at i ssue. See Spr i et sma, 537 U. S. at 63; Gei er , 529 U. S. at 867-

68. That i s not t r ue of t he r el at i onshi p bet ween t he FAA savi ng

cl ause and t he ADA pr eempt i on pr ovi si on.

Here, t he savi ng cl ause ext ends t o a more wi de- r angi ng

st at ut or y scheme. I ndeed, i t i s not even i n t he same subpar t of

- 22-


23/26

t he st at ut or y t i t l e as t he pr eempt i on pr ovi si on. Gi ven bot h t hi s

st r uct ur e and t he f act t hat t he savi ng cl ause l ong pr edat es t he

pr eempt i on pr ovi si on, t her e i s no l ogi cal basi s f or t r ansf or mi ng

t he savi ng cl ause i nto a monkey wr ench desi gned t o i mpede t he work

of t he pr eempt i on pr ovi si on.

The pl ai nt i f f s' f i f t h ar gument at t empt s t o bui l d upon t he

Supr eme Cour t ' s deci si on i n Wol ens. Ther e, t he J ust i ces hel d t hat

al t hough " t he ADA' s pr eempt i on pr escr i pt i on bar s st at e- i mposed

r egul at i on of ai r car r i er s, [ i t ] al l ows r oomf or cour t enf or cement

of cont r act t erms set by t he par t i es t hemsel ves. " Wol ens, 513 U. S.

at 222. Consequent l y, t he ADA does not pr eempt "sui t s al l egi ng no

vi ol at i on of st at e- i mposed obl i gat i ons, but [ r at her ] 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 s own, sel f -

i mposed under t aki ngs. " I d. at 228. Thi s i st hmi an except i on i s

j ust i f i ed because, i n a Wol ens scenar i o, a cour t i s conf i ned " t o

t he part i es' bargai n, wi t h no enl argement or enhancement based on

st at e l aws or pol i ci es ext er nal t o t he agr eement . " I d. at 233.

The pl ai nt i f f s posi t t hat t hei r cl ai ms can be squeezed

i nt o t he nar r ow conf i nes of t he Wol ens except i on. I n t hei r vi ew,

t he def endant s i ncur r ed a pr i vat el y or der ed obl i gat i on by

"pr omi s[ i ng] cust omers t hat t he $2 per bag charges t hey pai d woul d

be kept by t he skycaps as t i ps. " The pl ai nt i f f s wer e al l egedl y

har med by t he breach of t hat promi se and t he def endant s were

unj ust l y enr i ched. And because passengers pai d t he baggage f ees

- 23-


24/26

based on "mi sl eadi ng repr esent at i ons, " t hus "maki ng the $2 char ge

appear t o be t he skycaps' t i p, " t he def endant s t or t i ousl y

i nt er f er ed wi t h t he pl ai nt i f f s' advant ageous r el at i ons.

The Wol ens except i on i s ver y nar r ow, see Buck, 476 F. 3d

at 36- 37, and t he pl ai nt i f f s' unj ust enr i chment and t or t i ous

i nt er f er ence cl ai ms f al l out si de i t s conf i nes. As we expl ai n mor e

speci f i cal l y bel ow, t hose cl ai ms ar e al l eged t o ar i se out of st at e-

i mposed obl i gat i ons, not pr i vat e t er ms agr eed t o by the par t i es.

The doct r i ne of unj ust enr i chment exi st s i n t he hazy

r eal m of quasi - cont r act and r est i t ut i on. See, e. g. , Met r o. Li f e

I ns. Co. v. Cot t er , 984 N. E. 2d 835, 850 ( Mass. 2013) ; Sal amon v.

Ter r a, 477 N. E. 2d 1029, 1031 ( Mass . 1985) ; Rest at ement ( Thi r d) of

Rest i t ut i on & Unj ust Enr i chment 1 ( 2011) . "Or di nar i l y, a cl ai m

of unj ust enr i chment wi l l not l i e wher e t her e i s a val i d cont r act

t hat def i nes t he obl i gat i ons of t he par t i es. " Cot t er , 984 N. E. 2d

at 849 ( i nt er nal quot at i on marks omi t t ed) . Thi s makes good sense

because unj ust enr i chment i s based on "an obl i gat i on cr eat ed by l aw

f or r easons of j ust i ce, wi t hout any expr essi on of assent and

somet i mes even agai nst a cl ear expr essi on of di ssent . " Sal amon,

477 N. E. 2d at 1031 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

Unj ust enr i chment cl ai ms do not f al l wi t hi n t he Wol ens

except i on. Vi r t ual l y by def i ni t i on, unj ust enr i chment t ur ns on

sour ces ext ernal t o any agr eement between t he part i es such as

"consi der at i ons of equi t y and mor al i t y, " Cot t er , 984 N. E. 2d at 850

- 24-


25/26

( al t er at i on and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) and i s

pr edi cat ed on t he l ack of any agr eement . A f or t i or i , t he Wol ens

except i on does not appl y.

The pl ai nt i f f s' cl ai ms of t or t i ous i nt er f er ence f ar e no

bet t er . Such cl ai ms sound i n t or t , not cont r act . See, e. g. ,

Uni t ed Truck Leasi ng Corp. v. Gel t man, 551 N. E. 2d 20, 21- 22 ( Mass.

1990) ; Rest at ement ( Second) of Tor t s 766- 767 ( 1979) . Tor t l aw

i s not a pr i vat el y or der ed obl i gat i on, and t or t i ous i nt er f er ence

cl ai ms t her ef or e cannot t r i gger t he Wol ens except i on.

Gr aspi ng at st r aws, t he pl ai nt i f f s next suggest t hat t he

Supr eme Cour t ' s r ecent deci si on i n Dan' s Ci t y Used Car s, I nc. v.

Pel key, 133 S. Ct . 1769 ( 2013) , somehow changed t he l andscape and

r eshaped pr eempt i on doct r i ne t o f avor t hei r posi t i on. Thi s

suggest i on r epr esent s a t r i umph of hope over r eason.

The Supreme Cour t deci ded Dan' s Ci t y a case t hat

i mpl i cat ed t he pr eempt i on pr ovi si on i n t he FAAAA, 49 U. S. C.

14501( c) ( 1) on a nuanced r eadi ng of t he "r el at ed t o" pr eempt i on

component ( what we have cal l ed t he l i nkage component ) . See Dan' s

Ci t y, 133 S. Ct . at 1775, 1778- 79. The Cour t i n no way r et r eat ed

f r om exi st i ng pr ecedent but , r at her , r ei t er at ed and ci t ed wi t h

appr oval a r epr esent at i ve sampl i ng of i t s ear l i er deci si ons. See,

e. g. , i d. at 1775 ( ci t i ng Mor al es) ; i d. at 1778- 80 ( ci t i ng Rowe v.

N. H. Mot or Tr ansp. Ass' n, 552 U. S. 364 ( 2008) ) . Fai r l y r ead, Dan' s

Ci t y does not advance the pl ai nt i f f s' cause by so much as an i nch.

- 25-


26/26

III. CONCLUSION

We need go no f ur t her . 6 We have sai d bef ore, and t oday

r eaf f i r m, t hat "[ p] r eempt i on i s st r ong medi ci ne, not casual l y t o be

di spensed. " Gr ant ' s Dai r y, 232 F. 3d at 18. Her e, t he di st r i ct

cour t appr opr i at el y pr escr i bed t hat st r ong medi ci ne: a sear chi ng

appr ai sal of st at ut or y l anguage, congr essi onal i nt ent , and case l aw

l eads unwaver i ngl y t o the concl usi on t hat t he ADA pr eempt s t he

pl ai nt i f f s' common- l aw cl ai ms.

Affirmed.

6 The pl ai nt i f f s make ot her ar gument s, but none of t hemwar r ant s di scussi on. We si mpl y r ej ect t hose ot her ar gument s out ofhand.

- 26-

Documents

Mitchell v. US Airways, Inc., 1st Cir. (2013)