United States District Court, S.D. California
THOMAS J. LEWIS and LETICIA G. LEWIS, Plaintiffs,
CHASE AIRPORT MANAGEMENT INC; COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; and DOES 1-100, Defendants.
WILLIAM Q. HAYES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
following matters are pending before the Court: 1) the Motion
to Dismiss filed by Defendant Chase Airport Management Inc.
(ECF No. 4); 2) the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant
Federal Aviation Administration (ECF No. 6); and 3) the
Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant County of San Diego (ECF
April 2, 2019, Plaintiffs Thomas J. Lewis and Leticia G.
Lewis initiated this action by filing a Complaint in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego.
(Def.'s Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1 at 1). On May 22,
2019, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended .Complaint
("FAC") against Defendants Chase Airport Management
Inc. ("Chase"); the Federal Aviation Administration
("FAA"); and the County of San Diego
("County"). Id. at 5. Plaintiffs bring
claims for (1) negligence; (2) harassment; (3) hostile work
environment; (4) hostile living environment; and (5)
emotional distress. Id. Plaintiffs seek to
"[h]old [Defendants] Doe [P]ilots criminally
accountable," declaratory relief, an unspecified sum in
compensatory damages, and punitive damages in the amount of
$25, 000, 000.00. Id. at 6.
25, 2019, Defendant Chase filed a Motion to Dismiss for
failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 4). On June 26, 2019,
Defendant FAA filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction (ECF No. 6), supported by a Declaration
(George Decl., ECF No. 6-2 at 1-2) and Plaintiffs'
Administrative Claim to the FAA (Ex. A to George Decl., ECF
No. 6-2 at 4). On the same day, Defendant County filed a
Motion for More Definite Statement, or, in the alternative, a
Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim and a Motion
to Strike Plaintiffs' prayer for punitive damages (ECF
No. 9), supported by a Request for Judicial Notice (ECF No.
29, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition to
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a
claim (ECF No. 15), supported by attachments (ECF No. 15 at
31, 2019, Defendant County filed a Reply. (ECF No. 16). On
August 12, 2019, Defendant FAA filed a Reply. (ECF No. 17).
August 15, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition to
Defendant County of San Diego's Motion to Dismiss. (ECF
No. 19). On August 22, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Response to
Defendant FAA's Reply Brief in Support of Defendant
FAA's Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 25). On August 30,
2019, Plaintiffs filed a second Response to Defendant
FAA's Reply Brief in Support of Defendant FAA's
Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 27).
OF THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
allege that Defendants lack "professionalism, ethical
behavior and safe operations" and "[h]ave a
professional responsibility to advocate and maintain safety,
regulate flights in and out of airport, and ensure all
regulations and rules are followed daily." (ECF No. 1 at
6). Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants unnecessarily, dangerously, detoured aircraft to a
specific place at a specific time. Our home a[n]d our
business. Creating, a deliberate atmosphere of fear (kill
Id. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Chase
"annexed our property into airport operation with
criminal intent placing us in a kill zone." Id.
at 7. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants drove them out of
their home and forced the closure of their childcare
business. Id. at 9.
12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a
defendant to move for dismissal on grounds that the court
lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter. Fed R. Civ. P.
12(b)(1). The burden is on the plaintiff to establish that
the court has subject matter jurisdiction over an action.
Assoc. of Medical Colleges v. United States, 217
F.3d 770, 778-779 (9th Cir. 2000). In resolving an attack on
a court's jurisdiction, the court may go outside the
pleadings and consider evidence beyond the complaint relating