Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Shapiro v. Lundhal

United States District Court, N.D. California

May 10, 2017

LAWRENCE SHAPIRO, Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC LUNDAHL, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS FAC Re: Dkt. No. 27

          MARIA-ELENA JAMES United States Magistrate Judge

         INTRODUCTION

         Pending before the Court is Defendant Eric Lundahl's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6). Plaintiff Lawrence Shapiro filed an Opposition (Dkt. No. 28) and Defendant filed a Reply (Dkt. No. 29). The Court previously vacated the hearing on the Motion. See Dkt. No. 30. Having considered the parties' positions, the relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for the following reasons.

         BACKGROUND

         A. Factual Allegations

         On November 5, 2014, Shapiro and Lundahl left La Paz, Mexico in a private, noncommercial Cessna model 182K aircraft (the “182 Cessna”). FAC ¶¶ 1-2, 19, Dkt. No. 26. Although Shapiro “has been a pilot licensed to act as a Pilot in Command (‘PIC') with passengers for most of his life[, ]” he alleges that on November 5, 2014, he was a passenger, and that Lundahl acted as PIC of the plane. Id. ¶¶ 2-3, 7. After leaving La Paz, the plane crossed the Sea of Cortez. Id. ¶¶ 1, 16. Plaintiff alleges Defendant refused to refuel near Loreto, Mexico, flew over San Felipe, Mexico, then decided to turn around and stop at San Felipe International Airport in Mexico to refuel the plane. Id. ¶¶ 1, 20, 22. Lundahl encountered turbulence, “found that he was unable to fly the airplane and abdicated control of the airplane to Plaintiff with approximately thirty seconds remaining to land.” Id. ¶ 23. Shapiro was unable to correct the landing, the plane crashed, and Shapiro was severely injured. Id. ¶¶ 24-25.

         B. Original Complaint

         On November 4, 2016, Shapiro filed the original Complaint in this Court. He alleged three claims for violations of Federal Aviation Regulations 91.103, 91.151, and 91.13. See Compl., Dkt. No. 1 He named as defendants Lundahl, as well as a number of entities related to Baja Pirates.[1] Shapiro alleged Lundahl is the owner or one of the owners of Baja Pirates, together with the owner of the airplane, and that the Cessna 182 was used in connection with Baja Pirates' business activities on November 5, 2014. See id. ¶¶ 8-10. Lundahl moved to dismiss the Complaint on the ground it failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See First MTD, Dkt. No. 6. The Court found the Complaint failed to state a claim:

Each of Shapiro's claims is based on Lundahl's alleged violation of the Federal Aviation Act (“FAA”), 49 U.S.C. § 40103, and its implementing regulations. See Compl. Shapiro contends federal jurisdiction exists because “[t]his action arises under 28 U.S.C. [§] 1331, 49 U.S.C. [§] 40103, 28 U.S.C. [§] 1331(1) and [the FAA's] implementing regulations.” Id. ¶¶ 4-5.
The FAA “creates an extensive administrative enforcement scheme” but the Ninth Circuit has concluded, repeatedly and without equivocation, that it does not create a private right of action.

First Order at 3 (citing cases), Dkt. No. 25.

         C. First Amended Complaint

         Shapiro for the most part reasserts the allegations he included in the Original Complaint, adding a few more details regarding the basis for his claims. As is relevant to the Motion, the FAC alleges Defendant was negligent in deciding to plan the trip without any intermediate stops for refueling despite the availability of refueling stops (id. ¶ 16); not becoming familiar with all available information concerning the flight, including fuel requirements (id. ¶ 26); not having enough fuel in the plane when beginning the flight (id. ¶ 28); refusing to land to refuel at Loreto International Airport (id. ¶ 20); and failing to land the plane at San Felipe International Airport (id. ¶ 22-24). Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asserts claims based on violation of federal aviation regulations (claims 1-3) and general negligence (claim 4). He asserts federal jurisdiction exists based on admiralty. Id. ¶ 5.

         LEGAL ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.