Reeves v. NW Airlines Inc

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
______________________________
No. 00-20280
______________________________
ROBERT REEVES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC.; ET AL.,
Defendants,
NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC.; GIL CASTENADA,
Defendants-Appellants.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston
USDC No. H-99-CV-1242
_________________________________________________________________
March 8, 2001
Before FARRIS,* JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:**
Northwest Airlines, Inc. and Gil Castaneda (collectively
referred to as “Northwest”) appeal the magistrate judge’s order
denying Robert Reeves’ motion to remand, declining supplemental
jurisdiction and remanding the remainder of Reeves’ state causes
of action. We affirm.
*
Circuit Judge of the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
**
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Reeves filed this action in state court after his arrest for
threatening to hijack a flight on which he was ticketed. Reeves’
complaint alleged causes of action for negligence, false arrest,
malicious prosecution, breach of contract, defamation and
conspiracy. Northwest removed the action to federal court and
the parties consented to final judgment by a magistrate judge.
Holding that the Airline Deregulation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 41713,
preempted Reeves’ contract cause of action, the magistrate judge
denied Reeves’ motion to remand the action to state court. After
dismissing the contract claim, the magistrate judge refused to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Reeves’ remaining claims
and remanded the remaining claims to state court.
On appeal, Northwest contends that the ADA and Federal
Aviation Administration regulations preempt Reeves’ state claims,
and that federal common law governs those claims.
We review a decision rendered by a magistrate judge just as
we would a decision rendered by a district court. See Lady v.
Neal Glaser Marine, Inc., 228 F.3d 598, 601 (5th Cir. 2000). We
review de novo questions of law such as whether federal law
preempts a state cause of action. See id.
Before the magistrate judge, Northwest and Castenada argued
that there was federal jurisdiction because (1) the ADA preempted
state law claims for alleged wrongful exclusion from a flight,
and (2) federal regulations and duties were an essential part of
2
Reeves’ prima facie case under state law. They did not argue
that FAA safety regulations completely preempt Reeves’ state law
claims and we do not consider that question. Arguments against
remand must be preserved on appeal. See Copling v. Container
Store, Inc., 174 F.3d 590, 595 n.9 (5th Cir. 1999). The
magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion by declining
supplemental jurisdiction over the state tort claims, see Eastus
v. Blue Bell Creameries, L.P., 97 F.3d 100, 104 (5th Cir. 1996).
We do not address Northwest’s contention that federal common
law should govern Reeves’ state tort claims. Although Northwest
did intimate this point at the trial level, it failed to
adequately raise the issue. See Butler Aviation Int’l, Inc. v.
Whyte (In re Fairchild Aircraft Corp.), 6 F.3d 1119, 1128 & nn.
22-23 (5th Cir. 1993).
The order dismissing Reeves’ contract cause of action as
preempted, declining supplemental jurisdiction and remanding
Reeves’ remaining causes of action for adjudication in state
court is supported by the record.
Affirmed.
3