NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 3608

___________ ANDR E W P . KAL I CK ,

A ppel l ant v . NOR T HWES T AI RL I NE S CO RP ; NOR T HWES T AI RL I NE S I NC

____________________________________ O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o rth e D i s tr i c to f

N e w J e r s e y ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 1- 08- cv- 02972) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le J e ro m e B . S im a n d le

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 22, 2010 B efor e: R E N D E L L , H A R D I M A N and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ar ch 29, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM A n d re w P . K a lick a p p e a ls f ro m th e D istric t C o u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f N o rth w e st A irline s (N W A ) in h is c iv il su it. F o r th e f o llo w in g re a so n s, w e w ill af firm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er.2

I . F act ual and P roce dural H i s t ory K a lick ’s la w su it aris e s f ro m a d e c isio n b yN W A to d e n yh im b o a rd in g o n a Ju ly 19, 2007 fl i ghtfr om K ans as C i tyt o Phi l adel phi a. K al i ck pur chas ed t i cket s forthe fl i ght o n th e in ter n e t. W h e n h e a rriv e d a t th e K a n sa s C itya irp o rt, an N W A a g e n t in f o rm e d h im thatthe fl i ghtw as ful l . T he age ntadvi s ed K al i ck thats he had i ns t ead booke d hi m on an A m erican A ir li n es f

li g h t t o P h il ad elph ia w ith a lay o v er in D all as. F o r reaso n s tha t are uncl earfr om the r ecor d, K al i ck mi s s ed hi s connec t i ng fl i ghtand had t o s t ayi n the D al l as ai rpor toverni ght . A m er i can A i r l i nes booked K al i ck on a 6: 40 a. m . fl i ghton J ul y20, and h e a rr i v e d i n P h i l a d e l p h i a o n th a td a y. K al i ck fi l ed a s ui ti n the D i s tr i ctC our tal l egi ng thatN W A vi ol at ed D epart m entof T ra n sp o rta tio n re g u latio n s c o n c e rn in g c o m p e n sa tio n o f p a ss e n g e rs b u m p e d f

ro m o v e rso ld fl i ght s . I n addi t i on, K al i ck as s ert ed s t at e comm on l aw cl ai m s forbr eac h of contr actand f r a u d . K a l i c k r e q u e s t e d c o m p e n s a t o rya n d p u n i t i v e d a m a g e s t o t a l i n g $ 1 6 3 , 0 0 0 . N WA fi l ed a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , ar gui ng thatK al i ck fa i l ed t o adduce evi dence su f f icie n t to su p p o rt h is c laim s. T h e D istric t C o u rt o rd e re d su p p lem e n tal b rie f in g to d e ter m in e w h e th e r D O T re g u latio n s p ro v id e f o r a f e d e ra l rig h t o f

a c tio n a n d , if n o t, w h e th e r t h e c o u rts h o u ld e x e rc is e ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r K a lic k ’s re m a in in g s ta te la w c la im s . A ft erboth part i es fi l ed br i efs , the D i s tr i ctC our tent er ed an or derconcl udi ng thatthe D O T r egul at i ons do notcr eat e a pr i vat e r i ghtof ac t i on. A ft erdi s m i s s i ng K al i ck’ s l one fe d era l cl aim , the D istri ct C o u rtco n side red w h ethe r K ali ck ’s st ate law claim s w ere3

pr eempt ed bythe A i r l i ne D er egul at i on A ctof 1978 ( A D A ) . D et erm i ni ng thatany puni t i ve damages cl ai m s bas ed on K al i ck’ s s t at e cl ai m s w er e pr e- empt ed and, ther efor e, th a t K a lick c o u ld n o t m e e t th e $ 7 5 ,0 0 0 a m o u n t in c o n tro v e rsy req u ire m e n t f o r d iv e rsity j ur i s di ct i on, the D i s tr i ctC our tdecl i ned t o exer ci s e s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on over K al i ck’ s r emai ni ng s t at e l aw cl ai m s . A s a r es ul t , the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the ca s e for l ack of j ur i s di ct i on w i thoutpr ej udi ce t o K al i ck’ s r i ghtt o l i t i gat e the contr actand fr aud c la im s in s ta te c o u rt . K a lic k f ile d a tim e ly n o tic e o f

a p p e a l. I I . Juri s di ct i on and St andard of R evi ew W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth e f i n a l o r d e r s o f

d i s tr i c tc o u r t s u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1291. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s gr antof A ppel l ees ’ m ot i on f o rs u m m a ryj u d g m e n t . S e e Mo n r o e v . B e a r d , 5 3 6 F . 3 d 1 9 8 , 2 0 6 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) . We appl ythe s ame st andar d i n r evi ew i ng a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm entas the D i s tr i ct C our t . I d. A m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ents houl d be gr ant ed onl yi f ther e ar e no genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fac tand the movi ng partyi s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . F ed. R . C i v. P . 56 (c) . W e revi ew the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s decis i on no tt o ex erci se s u p p le m e n ta l ju ri s d ic tio n f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . S e e F ig u e ro a v . B u c c a n e e r H o te l I n c ., 1 8 8 F . 3 d 1 7 2 , 1 7 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). I I I . D i s cus s i on A . Feder al Subj ectM att erJ ur i s di ct i on U n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 1 , C o n g re ss h a s g iv e n lo w e r f e d e ra l co u rts ju risd ictio n to4

hear“onl ythos e ca s es i n w hi ch a w el l - pl eade d compl ai ntes t abl i s hes ei therthatfede r al l aw cr eat es the ca us e of a ct i on orthatthe pl ai nt i ff’ s r i ghtt o r el i ef ne ces s ar i l ydepends on reso luti o n o f a su b stan ti al qu esti o n o f f ed era l l aw . ” F ran ch ise T ax B d . v . C o n str . L a b o re rs V a c a tio n T ru s t, 4 6 3 U .S . 1 , 2 7 -2 8 (1 9 8 3 ). K al i ck, i n hi s amended compl ai nt , as s ert ed thatN W A vi ol at ed 14 C . F. R . § 250. 9, bynotpr ovi di ng hi m compensa t i on aft erhe w as bum ped fr om hi s fl i ght . T hatr egul at i on r equi r es carr i er s t o furni s h bum ped pas s enger s w i th “a w r i t t en s t at ementexpl ai ni ng the t erm s , condi t i ons , and l i m i t at i ons of deni ed boar di ng compensa t i on, and des cr i bi ng the carr i er s ’ boar di ng pr i or i tyrul es and cr i t er i a. ” The D i s tr i ctC our thel d thatthe r egul at i on d o e s n o t p ro v id e f

o r a p ri v a te ri g h t o f

a c tio n . W e a g re e . W hethera r egul at i on confe r s a pr i vat e r i ghtof ac t i on depends on w hetherthe enabl i ng s t atut e cr eat es a per s onal r i ghtorauthor i zes the r egul at i ng agenc yt o do s o. See A l exande rv. Sandoval , 532 U . S. 275, 291 ( 2001) ( r egul at i on on i t s ow n cannotcr eat e a pr i vat e r i ghtof ac t i on) ; T hr ee Ri ver s C tr . forI ndep. L i vi ng v. H ous . A uth. of the C i tyof Pi t t s bur gh, 382 F. 3d 412, 424 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . W e have pr evi ous l yhel d thatthe Feder al A vi at i on A ct , w hi ch the A D A amended, does notcr eat e a pr i vat e r i ghtof ac t i on. See gener al l yPol ans kyv. T r ans W or l d A i r l i nes , I nc. , 523 F. 2d 332 ( 3d C i r . 1975) ; W ol f v. T r ans W or l d A i r l i nes , I nc. , 544 F. 2d 134 ( 3d C i r . 1976) . W hi l e thi s C our thas not s peci fi cal l yaddr es s ed w hetherthe cons um erpr ot ect i on pr ovi s i ons of the A D A cr eat e a pr i vat e r i ghtof ac t i on, everyci r cui tw hi ch has addr es s ed the i s s ue has hel d thati tdoes5

not . See B uck v. A m er i can A i r l i nes , I nc. , 476 F. 3d 29, 34 ( 1s tC i r . 2007) ( col l ect i ng cas es ) . W e agr ee. Sect i on 250. 9 does notcr eat e a pr i vat e r i ghtof ac t i on. K al i ck ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tcoul d s t i l l exer ci s e s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on beca us e the r es ol ut i on of hi s s t at e l aw contr actand fr aud cl ai m s nece s s ar i l yi nvol ves the i nt erpr et at i on of a f

eder al r egul at i on. ( A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at21, ci t i ng G r abl e and Sons M e tal P ro d s., In c . v . D a ru e E n g ’g & M f g ., 5 4 5 U .S . 3 0 8 (2 0 0 5 )). It is tru e th a t in G ra b le & Sons, the C our tr eaf

fi r m ed i t s l ongs t andi ng hol di ng that , even a bs enta fe der al caus e of act i on, s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on m ayl i e w her e a s t at e l aw cl ai m i m pl i cat es s i gni fi cant fe d era l i ssu es. G rab le & S o n s, 5 4 5 U . S . at 31 2 . O n e y ea r l ater, the S u p rem e C o u rt emphasi zed thatG r abl e & Sons e xempl i fi ed a “ s l i m cat egory ” of s t at e- l aw cl ai m s w hi ch i nvol ve “pur e i s s ues of l aw ” and a n appl i cat i on of thos e i s s ues , w hi ch “s ens i bl ybel ong[] i n a fe der al court . ” Em pi r e H eal thchoi ce A s s ur ance , I nc. , v. M cV ei gh, 547 U . S. 677, 700- 01 ( 2006) . Fur ther , i n G r abl e & Sons, “the di s put e ce nt er ed on the ac t i on of a f eder al agenc y( I R S) and i t s compat i bi l i tyw i th a fe der al s t atut e, the ques t i on qual i fi ed as

‘ s ubs t ant i al , ’ and i t s r es ol ut i on w as both di s pos i t i ve of the ca s e and w oul d be contr ol l i ng in n u m e ro u s o th e r c a s e s .” Id . a t 7 0 0 . He r e , Ka l i c k a r g u e s o n l yth a th e c o u l d n o th a v e p l e a d e d h i s s t a t e c o u r tc l a i ms w ith o u t th e f

e d e ra l “ q u e s tio n ” in th e c o m p la in t a n d , th e re f o re , a f e d e ra l la w is a t is s u e . ( A p p e l l a n t ’ s B r . a t2 2 . ) We f a i l t o s e e , h o w e v e r , h o w h i s c o n tr a c td i s p u t e w i th N WA i m pl i cat es s i gni fi cantfede r al i nt er es t s , orhow the s t at e court ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the6

r egul at i on, as i tappl i es t o the contr act , w oul d be di s pos i t i ve and c ontr ol l i ng i n num er ous othercas es . Fur ther , i tdoes notappea rfr om K al i ck’ s compl ai ntthatthe i nt erpr et at i on of the fe der al r egul at i on i s i n di s put e, onl yw hetherN W A abi ded bythe r egul at i ons . K al i ck cannots i m pl yci t e t o a fe der al r egul at i on thatdoes notgi ve r i s e t o a pr i vat e ca us e of act i on i n or dert o s at i s fyfede r al s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on. E m pi r e H eal thchoi ce, 547 U . S . at 70 1 (cit ing G rab le & S o n s, 5 4 5 U . S . at 31 3 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted); s ee a l s o E as t m an v. M ar i ne M echa ni cal C orp. , 438 F. 3d 544, 553 ( 6th C i r . 2006) ( r efe r ence i n compl ai ntt o fede r al s t atut es ci t ed as a s our ce of publ i c pol i cydoes not cr eat e a s ubs t ant i al fede r al ques t i on) . T her efor e, w e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthat K al i ck’ s compl ai ntdoes notpr es enta fe der al ques t i on under§ 1331. B . D i ver s i tyJ ur i s di ct i on A fter d eterm ining that ith ad n o su b ject m att er jurisdicti o n , the D istri ct C o u rt det erm i ned thatK al i ck’ s puni t i ve damages cl ai m s w er e pr eempt ed bythe A D A and, ther efor e, he coul d notm eetthe amounti n contr over s yr equi r ementnece s s aryfor di ver s i tyj ur i s di ct i on. 28 U . S. C . § 1332. I n a pr evi ous cas e, w e have hel d thatpuni t i ve damages unders t at e t or tl aw ar e notpr eempt ed bythe A D A . See Taj M ahal T r avel , I nc. v. D el t a A i r l i nes , I nc. , 164 F. 3d 186, 195 ( 3d C i r . 1998) . W e nee d notdeci de w hether T aj M ahal i s di s t i ngui s habl e fr om the i ns t antcas e, how ever , i nas m uch as w e hol d that even i f K al i ck w er e perm i t t ed underthe A D A t o r ecove rpuni t i ve damages , he coul d notW e m a ya f f ir m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t o n a n yb a s is s u p p o rt e d b yth e re c o rd . 1 S ee N ici n i v. M o rra, 2 1 2 F . 3 d 7 9 8 , 8 0 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) (en b an c). 7 m e e t se c tio n 1 3 3 2 ’s a m o u n t in c o n tro v e rsy req u ire m e n t. 1 A t all sta g e s o f

th e lit ig a tio n , K a lick h a s th e b u rd e n to p ro v e th a t h is c a se is pr oper l ybefor e a f

eder al court . See Samuel - B as s ettv. K I A M ot or s A m er i ca, I nc. , 357 F .3 d 3 9 2 , 3 9 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). In S a m u e l-B a ss e tt, w e h e ld th a t w h e re th e re lev a n t f a c ts are noti n d i spute, a plai nti ff m ustshow byl egal cert ai ntythat the am ou nt i n co ntr ov ers y excee ds the st atutorym i nim um . Id. at39 8. W here fact s ar e i n d i spute, the p l ai nti ff m ust s how the s ame bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence . See Fr eder i co v. H om e D epot , 507 F. 3d 188, 194 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . H er e, i ti s undi s put ed thatK al i ck w as bum ped fr om N W A ’ s fl i ght , thatN W A offe r ed hi m a vouche r , thatK al i ck r ece i ved a s eaton a l at er A m e ric a n A irline s f

lig h t, K a lick h a d to re m a in in D a llas o v e rn ig h t, an d th a t K a lick d id n o t arri v e in P h il ad elph ia un ti l th e d ayaf ter he w as sc h ed u led to arrive. (A p p ell ee s’ B r. a t 4 .) O th e r f

a c ts, h o w e v e r, ar e in d isp u te; n a m e ly , w h e th e r N W A p ro v id e d K a lick w ith the r equi r ed i nform at i on aboutthe compens at i on he w as ent i t l ed t o underfede r al r e g u l a t i o n s . I n a s m u c h a s th e r e a r e d i s p u t e d f a c t s , K a l i c k m u s th a v e s h o w n b y a pr eponder ance , on the fa ce of hi s compl ai nt , thathe coul d r ecove ran amountexce edi ng $ 7 5 ,0 0 0 . S e e , e.g ., L M In s. C o rp v . S p a u ld in g E n ter s. In c ., 5 3 3 F .3 d 5 4 2 , 5 5 1 -5 2 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (f

ig u rin g th e c o n stitu tio n a l li m itatio n o n p u n iti v e d a m a g e s in to th e a m o u n t in co n tr o v ersyreq u ir em en t) . I n hi s pl eadi ng, K al i ck demands $163, 000 i n damages bas ed on N W A ’ s al l egedK al i ck appr oxi m at es hi s compensa t orydamages t o i ncl ude: “1) $233. 59- or i gi nal 2 t i cketr efund, 2) $250- hot el notaff or ded 3) $150- food notaff or ded 4) $800 m axi m um s t atut oryal l ow ance fordeni ed boar di ng compensa t i on. ” 8 br eac h of contr actand fr aud. ( A ppel l ee’ s Supp. A pp. at34. ) . E ven a l i ber al cons truct i on of K al i ck’ s pl eadi ngs does notl ead t o a conc l us i on thathe i s ent i t l ed t o r ecove rthe nece s s aryamount of damages . O n the fa ce of hi s compl ai nt , K al i ck’ s damages ar i s e fr om h is s tay i n th e D a llas a irp o rt f o r o n e u n a n ticip a ted n ig h t an d h is a rriv a l in P h ilad e lp h ia one dayl at erthan he pl anned. I n hi s r es pons es t o N W A ’ s i nt err ogat or i es , K al i ck i ndi cat ed thathi s compensa t orydamages amount ed t o $1433. 59 and hi s puni t i ve damages w e re $ 1 6 1 ,6 0 0 . (D e f.’s S u m m a ryJu d g m e n t M o t. E x h . D 3 2 -3 3 ). S u c h a d ra stic ra tio 2 b e tw e e n p u n iti v e a n d c o m p e n sa to ryd a m a g e s (1 1 2 to 1 ) w o u ld a lm o st c e rta in lyv io late the cons t i tut i on. See St at e Farm M ut . A ut o. I ns . C o. v. C ampbel l , 538 U . S. 408, 425 ( 2003) ( “[I ] n pr act i ce, few aw ar ds exce edi ng s i ngl e- di gi tr at i o betw een puni t i ve and compensa t orydamages , t o a s i gni fi cantdegr ee, w i l l s at i s fydue pr oces s . ”) . E ven as s um i ng thatK al i ck coul d r ecove rtw i ce the amountof compensa t orydamages he re q u e sts , o r a p p ro x im a tely$ 2 9 0 0 , h is m a x im u m p u n iti v e d a m a g e s w o u ld lea v e h im w e ll s hor tof the amounti n contr over s yr equi r ement . T her efor e, w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ct C our thol di ng thati tl acke d fede r al s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on overK al i ck’ s s t at e l aw cl ai m s. C . Suppl ement al J ur i s di ct i on U nd er 28 U . S . C . § 1 36 7(c) , “[t ]he di stri ctcou rt s m aydecli ne to exerci seW e have cons i der ed K al i ck’ s fr aud on the courtar gum entand fi nd i tt o be w i thout 3 m e ri t. 9 su p p lem e n tal ju risd ictio n o v e r a [ sta te la w ] c laim . . . if th e d istric t co u rt h a s d ism iss e d a ll cl ai m s over w hich i thas ori ginal j uri sdi ct i on . ” A bsent extraor dinaryci rcum st ances,

“ j u r i s d i c t i o n [ o v e rc l a i ms b a s e d o n s t a t e l a w] s h o u l d b e d e c l i n e d wh e r e th e f e d e r a l c l a i ms ar e no l ongervi abl e. ” Shaff erv. B d. of Sch. D i r s . of A l bertG al l at i n A r ea Sch. D i s t . , 730 F. 2d 910, 912 ( 3d C i r . 1984) . A s the part i es have poi nt ed t o no exce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s favor i ng the exe r ci s e of s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on, w e fi nd thatthe D i s tr i ct C our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n di s m i s s i ng the r emai nderof K al i ck’ s s t at e l aw cl ai m s. I V . C oncl usi on Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or dergr ant i ng A ppel l ees ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent . K al i ck’ s m ot i on t o s ubs t i tut e D el t a A i r l i nes 3 as a def endant( appel l ee) i s deni ed.