Bennett v. Southwest Airlines Co.

Seventh Circuit

Bennett v. Southwest Airlines Co.

493 F.3d 762, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 15251, 2007 WL 1827630

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedJune 27, 2007

Docket06-3486

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 493 F.3d 762 (Bennett v. Southwest Airlines Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bennett v. Southwest Airlines Co., 493 F.3d 762, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 15251, 2007 WL 1827630 (7th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

On Petition for Rehearing.

PER CURIAM.

Southwest Airlines’ petition for rehearing asserts that it presented an argument that our opinion overlooked: “whether the 1958 Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 40101 et. [sic] sec. [sic], preempts State authority to establish non-uniform and individual State standards for aviation safety.”

We had not overlooked this argument; we just thought it too feeble to require comment. Southwest does not rely on any particular section of the Federal Aviation Act, so this argument collapses to the contention, which our opinion considered at length, that the FAA’s establishment of uniform federal standards for many aspects of air transportation means that the suit arises under federal law.

Restated as an argument for preemption — but not “complete preemption” of the field, as Southwest does not deny that *763 state law controls damages, if not other subjects — the contention is weaker than the one our opinion addressed. For it has long been understood that preemption is an affirmative defense. An argument that one or another state law is preempted does not permit removal, because the arising-under jurisdiction depends on the claim for relief rather than potential defenses. See, e.g., Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830-32, 122 S.Ct. 1889, 153 L.Ed.2d 13 (2002); Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 9-12, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983); Taylor v. Anderson, 234 U.S. 74, 75-76, 34 S.Ct. 724, 58 L.Ed. 1218 (1914); Chicago v. Comcast Cable Holdings, L.L.C., 384 F.3d 901 (7th Cir.2004), Nothing in Grable changes that rule.

The petition for rehearing is denied, and no judge has asked for a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc. *

*

Judge Flaum did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

On Petition for Rehearing.

PER CURIAM.

Southwest Airlines’ petition for rehearing asserts that it presented an argument that our opinion overlooked: “whether the 1958 Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 40101 et. [sic] sec. [sic], preempts State authority to establish non-uniform and individual State standards for aviation safety.”

We had not overlooked this argument; we just thought it too feeble to require comment. Southwest does not rely on any particular section of the Federal Aviation Act, so this argument collapses to the contention, which our opinion considered at length, that the FAA’s establishment of uniform federal standards for many aspects of air transportation means that the suit arises under federal law.

Restated as an argument for preemption — but not “complete preemption” of the field, as Southwest does not deny that *763 state law controls damages, if not other subjects — the contention is weaker than the one our opinion addressed. For it has long been understood that preemption is an affirmative defense. An argument that one or another state law is preempted does not permit removal, because the arising-under jurisdiction depends on the claim for relief rather than potential defenses. See, e.g., Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830-32, 122 S.Ct. 1889, 153 L.Ed.2d 13 (2002); Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 9-12, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983); Taylor v. Anderson, 234 U.S. 74, 75-76, 34 S.Ct. 724, 58 L.Ed. 1218 (1914); Chicago v. Comcast Cable Holdings, L.L.C., 384 F.3d 901 (7th Cir.2004), Nothing in Grable changes that rule.

The petition for rehearing is denied, and no judge has asked for a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc. *

*

Judge Flaum did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

493 F.3d 762, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 15251, 2007 WL 1827630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennett-v-southwest-airlines-co-ca7-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack