1

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ABDIKARIM KARRANI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION, 

a Delaware corporation,

Defendant-Appellee.

 

 No. 19-35739

 D.C. No. 2:18-CV-01510-RSM

 MEMORANDUM*

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ricardo S. Martinez, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 6, 2020**

Seattle, Washington

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

OCT 16 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Before: GRABER and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and FREUDENTHAL,***

District Judge

Following an unrelated emergency medical landing, Abdikarim Karrani, a 

Somali by birth and an African American citizen, was removed from a JetBlue 

flight after an alleged altercation with a flight crew member. JetBlue refused to reboard him. On summary judgment, the district court dismissed Karrani’s claims of 

unlawful discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We assume that Karrani established a prima facie case. Karrani argues that

summary judgment was improper because he raised triable issues of fact which 

reasonably support the conclusion that race was a motivating factor in JetBlue’s 

decisions to remove and then to refuse to reboard him. Reviewing de novo, 

McGinest v. GTE Serv. Corp., 360 F.3d 1103, 1112 (9th Cir. 2004), the district 

court correctly determined that JetBlue’s reliance on 49 U.S.C. § 44902 constitutes 

a legitimate and non-discriminatory reason for its decisions. Section 44902 

provides an air carrier with permissive authority to “refuse to transport a passenger 

or property the carrier decides is, or might be, inimical to safety.” 49 U.S.C. 

§ 44902(b) (emphasis added).

*** The Honorable Nancy D. Freudenthal, United States District Judge for 

the District of Wyoming, sitting by designation. 
3

Karrani argues that the airline exceeded its § 44902 authority because the 

removal decision was made without further investigation and was based on the 

report of a biased flight attendant. However, the airline pilot was entitled to accept 

the attendant’s report when the pilot made the decision to refuse transport. See,

Cordero v. Cia Mexicana De Aviacion, S.A., 681 F.2d 669, 672 (9th Cir. 1982) 

(“[T]he test . . . rests upon the facts and circumstances of the case as known to the 

airline at the time it formed its opinion and made its decision . . . .” (quoting with 

approval Williams v. Trans World Airlines, 509 F.2d 942, 948 (2d Cir. 1975)

(internal quotation marks omitted))). Considering the attendant’s report even if, on 

hindsight, it is exaggerated, the airline pilot’s opinion under § 44902 was justified 

by a reasoned and rational appraisal of the facts known to the pilot at the time and 

was not arbitrary or capricious.

Karrani also challenges the denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

59(e) motion to amend the judgment due to evidence that Karrani asserts is newly 

discovered and was withheld by JetBlue. Because Karrani admits that he was in 

possession of this evidence before summary judgment was entered, the district

court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. 

AFFIRMED.