Justia U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Delta Air Lines, Inc. and Aerovias de México, S.A. de C.V. sought approval from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) for a joint venture to provide integrated airline services between the United States and Mexico. DOT approved the joint venture in 2016, granting both approval and antitrust immunity after finding that it would increase competition and public benefits in the U.S.–Mexico aviation market. As part of the approval, DOT required the petitioners to divest certain take-off and landing slots at Mexico City’s airport and imposed a five-year limit on antitrust immunity, citing concerns about slot allocation practices at that airport.After the initial approval, the petitioners operated under these conditions and, in 2022, sought renewal of the joint venture’s approval and immunity. However, DOT issued show-cause orders in 2024, and subsequently a final order in 2025, terminating both the approval and antitrust immunity. The DOT’s decision was based primarily on changes to slot allocation and restrictions on all-cargo carriers by the Mexican government at Mexico City’s airport, which DOT concluded had undermined competition and the public interest. The petitioners challenged this final order in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, arguing that DOT’s decision was arbitrary and capricious.The Eleventh Circuit agreed with the petitioners. It found that DOT had departed from its uniform practice of conducting comprehensive market analyses, instead focusing narrowly on a single airport without adequate explanation. The court also determined that DOT had imposed a requirement for open skies agreement implementation on the petitioners that it had not imposed in similar cases involving other countries. The court held that DOT’s final order was arbitrary and capricious, and vacated the order. View "Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

Several railroads and industry groups challenged a federal regulation requiring most freight trains to operate with at least two crewmembers unless the use of a one-person crew is shown to be equally safe. The regulation, issued by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in 2024, responded to safety concerns about the reduction of train crew sizes as technology advanced, citing specific accidents and research on the importance of crew redundancy for safety. The rule provides exemptions for smaller railroads with established one-person operations and offers a special approval process for others, especially those transporting hazardous materials.Previously, the FRA had declined to regulate crew size, withdrawing a proposed rule in 2019 based on insufficient evidence that one-person crews were less safe. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated this withdrawal, criticizing the agency's reasoning and its attempt to preempt state crew-size laws. Following a new rulemaking process, the FRA finalized the 2024 regulation after considering thousands of public comments, a public hearing, and new safety data.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed consolidated petitions from several railroads and associations. The petitioners argued, among other points, that the FRA exceeded its authority, acted arbitrarily and capriciously, failed to adequately consider costs, and violated statutory deadlines. The Eleventh Circuit held that the FRA acted within its broad statutory authority to regulate railroad safety, provided reasonable explanations for its policy changes and regulatory choices, adequately considered evidence and public input, and did not violate the law by taking more than twelve months to finalize the rule. The court denied all petitions for review, upholding the Crew Size Rule. View "Florida East Coast Railway LLC v. Federal Railroad Administration" on Justia Law

Two American companies, Declan Flight, Inc. and Right Rudder Aviation, LLC (RRA), developed successful sales and distribution relationships with Pipistrel, a Slovenian aircraft manufacturer, through contracts signed in 2020 and 2021. Their contracts contained forum-selection clauses specifying Slovenia as the forum for disputes. In 2022, Textron, Inc., a large U.S. aerospace company, acquired Pipistrel through its subsidiary Textron eAviation, Inc. Shortly after the acquisition, Textron and eAviation orchestrated the termination of Declan’s and RRA’s contracts. RRA also lost a separate sales contract with Mesa Airlines after Textron and eAviation allegedly interfered with that business relationship.Declan and RRA sued Textron and eAviation in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleging tortious interference with the Pipistrel contracts and with the Mesa Airlines contract. The district court dismissed the claims related to the Pipistrel contracts (Counts I and II) for forum non conveniens, holding that the forum-selection clauses could be enforced by Textron and eAviation—nonsignatories—under the federal doctrine of equitable estoppel, thus requiring litigation to proceed in Slovenia. The district court also found that personal jurisdiction existed for the Mesa Airlines claim (Count III), but dismissed it for failure to state a claim.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of Counts I and II. The court held that the applicability of the forum-selection clauses is governed by Slovenian law, not federal common law, and that Slovenian law does not permit nonsignatories to invoke these clauses. Thus, the district court erred in applying the modified forum non conveniens rule from Atlantic Marine. The Eleventh Circuit also reversed the finding of personal jurisdiction over Textron and eAviation as to Count III, remanding all claims for further proceedings. View "Declan Flight, Inc. v. Textron eAviation, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves José Ramón López Regueiro, who filed a lawsuit against American Airlines, Inc. under Title III of the Helms-Burton Act. Regueiro alleged that his father purchased Cuba’s main airport, which was later confiscated by Fidel Castro’s regime. Regueiro inherited his father’s interest in the airport and became a U.S. citizen in 2015. He claimed that American Airlines trafficked in the confiscated property by operating flights in and out of the airport.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the case. The court agreed with American Airlines that the Helms-Burton Act implicitly required the property owner to be a U.S. citizen when the property was confiscated and the plaintiff to be a U.S. citizen when they acquired an interest in the property. Since Regueiro’s father was not a U.S. citizen when the airport was confiscated and Regueiro became a U.S. citizen only after inheriting the property, the court ruled that Regueiro failed to state a claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and disagreed with the district court’s interpretation. The appellate court concluded that the Helms-Burton Act does not impose the preconditions that American Airlines argued. The Act provides a cause of action to any U.S. national who owns a claim to confiscated property, regardless of the owner’s citizenship status at the time of confiscation or acquisition. The court also rejected American Airlines’s argument that Regueiro’s ownership of shares in the company that owned the airport did not constitute an ownership interest in the airport itself. The appellate court vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Regueiro v. American Airlines, Inc." on Justia Law

CSX Transportation, Inc. is a freight railroad company. General Mills, Inc. operates a cereal processing plant in Georgia near one of CSX’s rail lines. A small connecting railroad connects CSX’s main rail line to General Mills’s plant. A contract between CSX and General Mills governs the use of the sidetrack.A General Mills employee suffered severe injuries while working on the sidetrack and then sued CSX for negligence. A jury found CSX liable, and CSX sought indemnification from General Mills, citing a contractual provision providing General Mills was required to indemnify CSX—regardless of whether CSX alone was responsible. The district court dismissed one of CSX’s breach-of-contract claims and granted General Mills summary judgment on the other.The Eleventh Circuit found that, under the parties’ agreement, General Mills was not required to indemnify CSX if CSX was solely negligent. However, the court disagreed with the district court that Georgia's vouchment doctrine barred CSX from litigating the issue of General Mills’s negligence. Thus, the Eleventh Circuit remanded for the district court to determine if General Mills was at least partially at fault for the injury. If so, then General Mills must indemnify CSX for at least a portion of the settlement and related expenses. View "CSX Transportation, Inc. v. General Mills, Inc." on Justia Law

The Professional Airline Flight Control Association complained that Spirit is attempting to change its agreement. Spirit responded that its unilateral decision to open a second operations control center is permitted by the parties’ agreement. The district court agreed with Spirit that this dispute is minor and dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.   The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. Section 151 et seq., divides labor disputes into two categories: disputes over the interpretation of an existing agreement are “minor” and resolved exclusively through binding arbitration, and disputes over proposed changes to an agreement or over a new agreement are “major” and addressed through bargaining and mediation. During a major dispute, district courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to enjoin violations of the status quo. But district courts ordinarily lack jurisdiction over minor disputes. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court’s dismissal. View "Professional Airline Flight Control Association v. Spirit Airlines, Inc." on Justia Law

Intervenor is a former commercial pilot who now flies a small Cessna jet for his own personal use. The intervenor landed his Cessna at the Lantana Airport. A Palm Beach County ordinance prohibits “pure turbo-jet aircraft” and cargo-carrying aircraft that weigh more than 12,500 pounds from using Lantana Airport, and Palm Beach County enforces the ordinance in a way that actually bans all jets, not just the “pure turbo” variety. The intervenor complained to the Federal Aviation Administration that the ordinance’s jet restriction violated a grant assurance the County had made to the FAA in exchange for federal airport improvement money. The FAA agreed with the Intervenor and ordered the County to rescind the restriction. The County and the City of Atlantis, which borders Lantana Airport, have petitioned us for review of the FAA’s final agency decision.   The Eleventh Circuit denied the petition for review. The court explained that the FAA has exclusive authority over our national navigable airspace, which means it’s responsible for “developing plans and policy . . . necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use” of that space. It “may modify or revoke an assignment of airspace when required in the public interest.” As long as any change in the FAA’s position on an airport restriction isn’t based on an impermissible bias, it has the authority to make that change. The Associate Administrator’s conclusion that Lantana Airport’s jet restriction violates Grant Assurance wasn’t arbitrary and capricious but instead was supported by substantial evidence. View "Palm Beach County, et al. v. Federal Aviation Administration" on Justia Law

Enacted after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), creates a comprehensive remedial scheme that governs—and apportions liability for—oil-removal costs. OPA holds oil spillers strictly liable upfront for oil-removal expenses and allows them, if they meet certain requirements, to avail themselves of one of three liability defenses and to seek contribution from other culpable parties. The M/V SAVAGE VOYAGER was transporting oil through a Mississippi waterway when an accident at a boat lift— operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—caused a rupture in the SAVAGE VOYAGER’s hull, through which thousands of gallons of oil poured into the river.The owners of the vessel sued the United States, not under the OPA, but under the common-law admiralty regime. They cited the Suits in Admiralty Act (SAA), a 1920 law by which Congress generally waived sovereign immunity for most admiralty claims. The interplay between the OPA and the SAA was an issue of first impression in the federal courts. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the vessel owner’s claims for removal costs. OPA authorizes no claim against the government for oil-removal damages and OPA’s comprehensive remedial scheme displaced the SAA’s more general sovereign-immunity waiver. View "Savage Services Corp. v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs purchased tickets for Defendant’s commercial flights from Miami to Venezuela. Plaintiffs allege that their ticket prices reflected the “fully-paid contract” and that Defendant failed to sufficiently disclose any other fees required for passage. When checking in for their flights at the airport, however, Defendant informed Plaintiffs that they had to pay an additional $80 “Exit Fee” before being allowed to board their flights. Plaintiffs filed a breach of contract putative class action.The district court dismissed the suit, concluding that the Airline Deregulation Act preempted Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim because it related to the price of the airline ticket and the Act’s preemption provision identifies actions relating to price as preempted. The Eleventh Circuit reversed, first holding that the Plaintiffs plausibly alleged facts that would establish diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim seeks merely to enforce the parties’ private agreements regarding the cost of passage and does not invoke state laws or regulations to alter the agreed-upon price. The statute, 49 U.S.C. 41713(b)(1), provides: “[A] State . . . may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of an air carrier..” The suit falls within the category of cases protected from preemption by Supreme Court precedent. View "Cavalieri v. Avior Airlines C.A." on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit held that relocation benefits provided by a railroad to its employees are exempt under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act as bona fide and necessary expenses incurred by the employee in the business of the employer, 26 U.S.C. 3231(e)(1)(iii). The court also held that, because no regulatory substantiation requirements apply, CSX is entitled to a refund. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States in regard to whether relocation benefits are exempt under section 3231(e)(1)(iii); reversed in part the district court's grant of summary judgment in regard to CSX's need and failure to satisfy the Accountable Plan Regulation; and remanded for the district court to calculate the amount of CSX's refund and administer the notification process. View "CSX Corp. v. United States" on Justia Law