Eldredge v. American Airlines Incorporated

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: September 4, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00823
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Russ Eldredge, No. CV-25-00823-PHX-SMB

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 American Airlines Incorporated,

13 Defendant. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15), Plaintiff’s 16 Response (Doc. 20), and Defendant’s Reply (Doc. 23). Oral argument was scheduled for 17 September 25, 2025. However, after review of the pleadings, the Court finds that oral 18 argument would not be helpful and the hearing will be vacated. For following reasons, the 19 Court grants Defendant’s Motion. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 Defendant, an airline, had a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) with the 22 Allied Pilots Association (the “APA”). (Doc. 20 at 9 n.3; Doc. 15-1 at 7.) This was known 23 as the Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement (the “JCBA”). (Doc. 20 at 9 n.3.) Plaintiff, 24 a member of the APA, was a pilot for Defendant until he was diagnosed with substance 25 use disorder. (Doc. 1 at 2–3.) Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a claim for long-term disability 26 (“LTD”) benefits under Defendant’s LTD insurance plan (the “Plan”). (Doc. 1 at 3.) 27 Plaintiff asserts that he was entitled to LTD benefits because he was disabled within the 28 meaning of the Plan. (Doc. 1 at 3.) The Plan is subject to the Employee Retirement Income 1 Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). (Doc. 1 at 1; Doc. 15-1 at 65.) 2 Defendant denied Plaintiff’s claim, reasoning that Plaintiff was not an employee at 3 the time he incurred the disability and that the disability was otherwise the product of 4 criminal activity. (Doc. 1 at 3.) Plaintiff unsuccessfully appealed the denial twice. (Doc. 5 1 at 3–4; Doc. 20-3 at 2.) Plaintiff’s second appeal was decided by the “Employee Benefits 6 Committee,” which notified Plaintiff that he had “the right to institute a civil action under 7 Section 502(a) of ERISA.” (Doc. 20-3 at 7.) Plaintiff then sued Defendant, claiming that 8 Defendant wrongfully denied him LTD benefits under the Plan and in violation of ERISA 9 § 502(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). (Doc. 1 at 5.) Defendant filed the instant 10 Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the Complaint should be dismissed under Federal Rule of 11 Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Railway 12 Labor Act (“RLA”). (Doc. 15 at 2.) 13 II. LEGAL STANDARD 14 Under Rule 12(b)(1), a party may move to dismiss a claim for lack of subject-matter 15 jurisdiction. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may only hear cases as 16 authorized by the Constitution or statute. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 17 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A court has subject-matter jurisdiction over claims that “aris[e] 18 under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” and over “civil actions where 19 the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and 20 costs, and is between” diverse parties. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a). Because this Court’s 21 jurisdiction is limited, it is to be presumed that a cause lies outside of it, and the burden of 22 establishing jurisdiction is on the party asserting it. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. 23 “A Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack may be facial or factual.” Safe Air for 24 Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). A facial attack “asserts that the 25 allegations contained in a complaint are insufficient on their face to invoke federal 26 jurisdiction.” Id. In this circumstance, the Court accepts the plaintiff’s allegations as true 27 and draws all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor, then “determines whether the 28 allegations are sufficient as a legal matter to invoke the court’s jurisdiction.” Leite v. Crane 1 Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014). “A ‘factual’ attack, by contrast, contests the 2 truth of the plaintiff’s factual allegations, usually by introducing evidence outside the 3 pleadings.” Id. In a facial attack, the Court’s inquiry is confined to the allegations in the 4 complaint, while a factual attack permits the Court to look beyond the complaint. Savage 5 v. Glendale Union High Sch., Dist. No. 205, Maricopa Cnty., 343 F.3d 1036, 1039 n.2 (9th 6 Cir. 2004). Motions challenging jurisdiction pursuant to the RLA are typically factual 7 attacks. See O’Hailpin v. Hawaiin Airlines, Inc., CIV. NO. 22-00532 HG-WRP, 2025 WL 8 1332312, at *4 (D. Haw. May 6, 2025); Hinant v. American Airlines, Inc., No. 9 CV-24-02869-PHX-SPL, 2024 WL 4988391, at *3 (D. Ariz. Dec. 5, 2024). 10 Because subject-matter jurisdiction involves a court’s power to hear a case, it can 11 never be forfeited or waived. United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002). Therefore, 12 if the Court determines at any point that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss 13 the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). 14 III. DISCUSSION 15 As noted, federal courts have jurisdiction over civil actions arising under federal 16 law. §§ 1331, 1332(a). Accordingly, federal courts generally have jurisdiction over claims 17 arising under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B). See Marin Gen. Hosp. v. Modesto & Empire Traction 18 Co., 581 F.3d 941, 944–45 (9th Cir. 2009) (recognizing that federal courts have jurisdiction 19 over ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) claims and that such claims can preempt state law claims). 20 ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) provides: “A civil action may be brought . . . by a participant or 21 beneficiary . . . to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his 22 rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms 23 of the plan.” 24 Defendant argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim because it 25 is subject to the “exclusive and mandatory” jurisdiction of a system board of adjustment 26 (“SBA”) under RLA § 204, 45 U.S.C. § 184. (Doc. 15 at 2.) Indeed, federal courts lack 27 jurisdiction over ERISA claims that are within a SBA’s exclusive jurisdiction. See Long 28 v. Flying Tiger Line, Inc. Fixed Pension Plan for Pilots, 994 F.2d 692, 695 (9th Cir. 1993). 1 Accordingly, the Court explains what type of claims are within a SBA’s exclusive 2 jurisdiction under the RLA. 3 A. The RLA and Minor Disputes 4 “The RLA creates ‘a comprehensive framework for resolving labor disputes’ in the 5 rail and airline industries.” Alaska Airlines Inc. v. Schurke, 898 F.3d 904, 916 (9th Cir. 6 2018) (quoting Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246, 252 (1994)). As relevant 7 here, the RLA “requires that an air carrier and its employees establish [a SBA] with 8 jurisdiction over disputes ‘growing out of grievances, or out of the interpretation or 9 application of [CBAs] concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions.’” Long, 994 10 F.2d at 693 (quoting RLA § 204). These disputes are called “minor disputes.” See Ass’n 11 of Flight Attendants, AFL-CIO v. Horizon Air Indus., Inc, 280 F.3d 901, 904 (9th Cir. 12 2002). 13 Federal courts do not have jurisdiction to resolve minor disputes. See Int’l Ass’n of 14 Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Alaska Airlines, 813 F.2d 1038, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 15 1987).1 Instead, minor disputes “must be resolved only through the RLA mechanisms, 16 including the carrier's internal dispute-resolution processes and [a SBA] established by the 17 employer and the unions.” Norris, 512 U.S. at 253. Accordingly, the Court must assess 18 whether Plaintiff’s ERISA claim constitutes a minor dispute under the RLA. 19 Courts have recognized that “minor disputes resist a rigid definition” because “they 20 often depend on particularized facts.” Saridakis v. United Airlines, 166 F.3d 1272, 1276 21 (9th Cir. 1999). Still, the Ninth Circuit developed a two-part inquiryto determine whether 22 a claim constitutes a minor dispute under the RLA. See Shurke, 898 F.3d at 920. First, 23 courts ask whether a claim “seek[s] purely to vindicate a right or duty created by the CBA 24 itself.” Columbia Exp. Terminal, LLC v. Int’l Longshore & Warehouse Union, 23 F.4th 25 836, 842 & n.1 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Curtis v. Irwin Indus., Inc., 913 F.3d 1146, 1152 26 1 RLA disputes can also involve “[m]ajor disputes” which “concern statutory rights, such 27 as the right to form collective bargaining agreements or to seek to secure new rights and incorporate them into future agreements.” Horizon, 280 F.3d at 904 (quoting Int’l Ass’n 28 of Machinists, 813 F.2d at 1039)). Federal courts have jurisdiction over major disputes. See id. Neither party contends that this case involves a major dispute. 1 (9th Cir. 2019)).2 “If so, then the claim is preempted, and the analysis ends there.” Id. 2 (quoting Curtis, 913 F.3d at 1152)). But if the claim is not so preempted, courts assess 3 whether the underlying claim requires interpretation or application of the CBA. See 4 Schurke, 898 F.3d at 917, 919. “Courts have ruled that a plaintiff’s claim is not precluded 5 by the RLA when the court need simply review a term in the CBA or read the provisions 6 of the CBA to determine its basic provisions.” O’Hailpin, 2025 WL 1332312, at *9 (citing 7 cases). 8 Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claim is a minor dispute because it turns entirely 9 on interpretation of the JCBA which incorporates the Plan. (Doc. 15 at 3.) Defendant 10 notes that Defendant and the APA specifically agreed to resolve disputes concerning the 11 Plan through the JCBA’s grievance and arbitration procedures. (Doc. 15 at 3.) Defendant 12 points to “Letter KK(2)” of the JCBA, which “confirms the agreement between 13 [Defendant] and the [APA]. . . to provide a new long-term disability plan for pilots.” (Doc. 14 15-1 at 9.) Defendant notes that Letter KK(2) provides that “[a]ll documentation regarding 15 the establishment of the [Plan] shall be established by mutual agreement between” the 16 Defendant and the APA, and further states that “[a]ny disputes under [Letter KK(2)] shall 17 be handled in accordance with the provisions of Supplement F(4).” (Doc. 15 at 3; Doc 18 15-1 at 10.) Supplement F(4), which confirms an earlier agreement between Defendant 19 and the APA, provides that “[d]isputes under [Supplement F(4)] shall be subject to the 20 grievance and arbitration procedures provided by the parties in the [JCBA].” (Doc. 15 at 3; 21 Doc. 15-1 at 12–13.) Defendant also notes that the Plan provides that where the Plan and 22 the JCBA conflict, the JCBA controls. 23 Additionally, Defendant argues that the JCBA governs whether Plaintiff is eligible 24 for coverage. (Doc. 15 at 3.) Defendant notes that a person must be an “Active Pilot 25 Employee” to be eligible for coverage under the Plan. (Doc. 15 at 3.) Under the Plan, an 26 Active Pilot Employee is “a Pilot Employee who performs or is eligible to perform duties 27 2 The court in Columbia Export decided an issue under the Labor Management Relations 28 Act (“LMRA”). See 23 F.4th at 840. However, the Ninth Circuit applies the articulated two-step inquiry in both RLA and LMRA cases. See Schurke, 898 F.3d at 920. 1 as a pilot for [Defendant].” (Doc. 15-1 at 41.) Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s 2 eligibility to perform duties as a pilot “falls squarely within the scope of the JCBA.” (Doc. 3 15at 4.) 4 Plaintiff argues that his claim “neither arises out of the [JCBA] nor does it require 5 interpretation of the [JCBA].” (Doc. 20 at 4.) Plaintiff notes that the Plan provides that 6 “neither the interpretation of the Plan nor its administration shall as such be within the 7 jurisdiction of [the JCBA].” (Doc. 15-1 at 60; Doc. 20 at 5.) Plaintiff also argues that the 8 Plan disclaims RLA preemption in providing that “if [a claimant’s] claim is improperly 9 denied . . . [the claimant has] the right to file suit in a federal or state court.” (Doc. 15-1 10 at 65; Doc. 20 at 6.) Plaintiff additionally contends that Defendant’s reliance on Letter 11 KK(2) and Supplement F(4) is misplaced because those documents, as relevant here, refer 12 to amendments of the Plan. (Doc. 20 at 6–7.) 13 B. Plaintiff’s Claim Arises Out of the JCBA 14 The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff’s ERISA claim is a minor dispute 15 under the RLA. As noted, a claim is considered a minor dispute if “founded directly on 16 rights created by [CBAs]” or is “substantially dependent on analysis of a 17 collective-bargaining agreement.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 394 (1987) 18 (quoting Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO v. Hechler, 481 U.S. 851, 859 n.3 (1987)). 19 “[T]o determine whether a particular right is grounded in a CBA, we evaluate the ‘legal 20 character’ of the claim by asking whether it seeks purely to vindicate a right or duty created 21 by the CBA itself.” Shurke, 898 F.3d at 920–21. 22 Here, Plaintiff brings an ERISA claim to recover benefits he argues he is owed under 23 the Plan. Accordingly, the ERISA claim is premised entirely on Plaintiffs alleged right to 24 recover under the Plan. However, the Plan, and any entitlement Plaintiff might have 25 thereunder, only exists because the JCBA obligated Defendant to provide the Plan in the 26 first instance. See Burnside v. Kiewit Pac. Corp., 491 F.3d 1053, 1065 (9th Cir. 2007). 27 Accordingly, the Plan is the “source” of Plaintiff’s alleged right, not ERISA. Thus, the 28 Court analyzes whether rights arising under the Plan are grounded in the JCBA. On this 1 point, the Court is persuaded by Pearson v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 659 F. Supp. 2d 1084 (C.D. 2 Cal. 2009), which is nearly factually and procedurally identical to the present case. 3 In Pearson, an employee of an airline filed a claim for LTD benefits under the 4 airline’s LTD plan. Id. at 1085–86. The airline denied the employee’s claim, who then 5 sued the airline under ERISA for wrongfully denying her benefits. Id. at 1085. The airline 6 moved to dismiss the employee’s claims under Rule 12(b)(1). Id. at 1087. The court 7 granted the motion. Id. at 1094. As is the case here, the issue in Pearson was whether the 8 employee’s claim was a minor dispute under the RLA. Id. at 1088. 9 The Pearson court found that the employee’s ERISA claim was “inextricably 10 intertwined with the CBA” such that the employee’s ERISA claim was grounded in the 11 CBA at issue in that case. Id. at 1093. The court began by looking at whether the LTD 12 plan was “maintained pursuant” to the CBA, considering: “(1) whether the CBA set forth 13 material amendments to or elements of the plan; (2) whether the plan referenced the CBA; 14 and (3) whether evidence showed the parties to the CBA had bargained for the plan.” Id. 15 at 1091 (citing Jenisio v. Ozark Airlines, Inc. Ret. Plan for Agent & Clerical Emps., 187 16 F.3d 970, 973–74 (8th Cir. 1999)). Finding that each of the foregoing factors were met, 17 the court then considered whether the employee’s ERISA claim was dependent on the 18 CBA. Id. at 1093. The court concluded that the employee’s ERISA claim was dependent 19 on the CBA because the employee’s “alleged right to benefits derives from [a LTD policy] 20 created pursuant to the CBA,” thus, “the CBA is the ‘source’ of that right.” Id. 21 Accordingly, the court rejected the employee’s argument that her ERISA claim “turns 22 solely on an interpretation of the proof of loss provision in the [LTD policy].” Id. 23 As was the case in Pearson, the Court finds that the Plan is maintained pursuant to 24 the JCBA. In Letter KK(2) to the JCBA, Defendant and the APA agreed to provide the 25 Plan. (Doc. 15-1 at 9.) Letter KK(2) then provides many material elements to the Plan 26 such as the amount of benefits, the duration of benefit payments, and the period for filing 27 claims. See Jenisio, 187 F.3d at 973 (noting that a retirement plan was incorporated into a 28 CBA where the CBA “sets forth material amendments to and elements of the [plan]” 1 including “the size of the annual benefit”). Letter KK(2) also sets out additional elements 2 of the Plan which must be further agreed to. For example, Letter KK(2) provides that the 3 Plan “shall be administered by a third party administrator to be mutually determined by the 4 [Defendant] and the [APA].” (Doc. 15-1 at 10 (emphasis added).) Letter KK(2) also 5 provides that “[a]ll documentation regarding the establishment of the [Plan] shall be 6 established by mutual agreement between the [APA] and the [Defendant]” and then 7 provides that any amendments to the Plan shall be made pursuant to Supplement F(4) to 8 the JCBA. (Doc. 15-1 at 10.) Supplement F(4) provides that Defendant has the right to 9 amend the Plan during the “duration of the [JCBA]” if “the [APA] agrees to the 10 amendment.” (Doc. 15-1 at 12.) Lastly, the Plan makes multiples references to the JCBA. 11 The Plan provides that it “is established and maintained pursuant to the [JCBA]” and 12 further provides that the JCBA governs “[i]n the event of a conflict between the provisions 13 of [the Plan] and the provisions contained in the [JCBA].” (Doc. 15-1 at 67–68.) 14 Accordingly, we find that the Plan is inextricably intertwined with the JCBA. 15 Additionally, as was the case in Pearson, the Court does not find any evidence 16 suggesting that Plaintiff’s claim otherwise asserts a right independent of the JCBA. It 17 would be myopic to conclude that Plaintiff’s rights under the Plan exist independently of 18 the JCBA merely because the Plan is a separate document. As noted, the RLA’s arbitration 19 requirements apply to ERISA claims where the underlying insurance plan is “maintained 20 pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement.” Hastings v. Wilson, 516 F.3d 1055, 1059 21 (8th Cir. 2008). Here, Plaintiff is claiming that Defendant wrongfully denied him LTD 22 benefits; however, those benefits only exist because of the JCBA. The Plan itself provides 23 that it “is provided, administered and funded entirely by the [Defendant] subject to [the 24 JCBA].” (Doc. 15-1 at 41.)3

25 3 Because the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s claim is grounded in the CBA, the Court does not separately analyze whether Plaintiff’s claim requires interpretation of the JCBA. 26 See Schurke, 898 F.3d at 921. This analysis is further obviated given the significant relationship between the Plan and the JCBA. Interpretation of the CBA is required where 27 “there is an active dispute over ‘the meaning of contract terms.’” Id. (quoting Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107, 124 (1994)). As Plaintiff acknowledges, Defendant denied him 28 LTD benefits—in part—because “Plaintiff was not an Active Pilot Employee under the . . . Plan when the disability was incurred.” (Doc. 1 at 3.) Although the Court was not 1 Additionally, Plaintiff’s reliance on Bonin v. American Airlines, Inc., 621 F.2d 635 2 (5th Cir. 1980) is misplaced. (Doc. 20 at 4.) Plaintiff relies on Bonin for the proposition 3 that “if the parties expressly state that a dispute is not subject to the CBA, the RLA does 4 not apply.” (Doc. 20 at 4.) The court in Bonin ruled that a district court had jurisdiction 5 over a plaintiff’s ERISA claim seeking benefits under a pension plan. Bonin, 621 F.2d 6 at 640. The Bonin court found it significant that the pension plan provided: 7 “Notwithstanding any other provision of this Plan, neither the interpretation of the Plan nor 8 its administration shall as such be within the jurisdiction of [the CBA].” Id. at 636. (Doc. 9 15-1 at 60.) While the Plan in this case contains the same language, that language, by itself, 10 does not compel this Court to reach the same conclusion as Bonin. The foregoing language 11 cannot be read to suggest that interpreting the Plan can never entail interpretation of the 12 JCBA. As noted, the Plan’s definition of “Pilot Employee” necessarily relies on the JCBA. 13 More broadly, the Plan provides that the JCBA controls “[i]n the event of a conflict 14 between the provisions of [the Plan] and the provisions contained in the [JCBA].” (Doc. 15 15-1 at 68.) Additionally, just before that language, the Plan provides that the administrator 16 of the Plan is “bound by any determination pursuant to the [JCBA]” and is precluded from 17 “administer[ing] the Plan in any manner inconsistent with a final determination under [the 18 JCBA].” (Doc. 15-1 at 60.) Thus, the cited language is better understood as giving the 19 Plan administrator jurisdiction to interpret the Plan when the JCBA is not controlling. 20 Furthermore, the court in Bonin expressly recognized that the lower court had 21 jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s pension plan claim because “the pension plan . . . is not 22 maintained pursuant to a [CBA].” Id. at 639. Here, as explained, the Plan is maintained 23 pursuant to the JCBA. Additionally, the court in Bonin noted that the circumstances before 24 it were unlike those in De La Rosa Sanchez v. E. Airlines, Inc., 574 F.2d 29 (1st Cir. 1978),

25 provided a copy of the JCBA in its entirety, on the record before it, it appears that a determination of whether a claimant qualifies as an Active Pilot Employee is governed by 26 the JCBA. The Plan requires a person to be an “Active Pilot Employee” to be eligible for coverage. (Doc. 15-1 at 46.) An “Active Pilot Employee” is a “Pilot Employee who 27 performs or is eligible to perform duties as a pilot for [Defendant].” (Doc. 15-1 at 41.) The Plan does not articulate any basis to determine whether a person is eligible to perform pilot 28 duties. Instead, the Plan defines “Pilot Employee” as a person “permitted to participate in the Plan as provided under the [JCBA].” (Doc. 15-1 at 45 (emphasis added).) || where aclaimant had to submit their claim for benefits to arbitration under the RLA. Bonin, 621 F.2d at 639 n.8. The court noted that De La Rosa Sanchez was different because the || CBA at issue in that case controlled the claimant’s right to benefits. /d. Accordingly, 4|| Bonin noted that “the terms of a [CBA] were necessarily at issue in determining the || plaintiff's right to benefits.” /d. Here, the Plan is the product of the JCBA which similarly || establishes a claimant’s rights to benefits. As noted, a claimant’s right to benefit under the 7\| Plan is contingent, in part, on their status as a “Pilot Employee,” a term the Plan provides 8 || individuals “permitted to participated in the Plan as provided under the [JCBA].” (Doc. 9|| 15-1 at 45 (emphasis added).) 10 Because Plaintiff's ERISA claim is predicated on an alleged violation of the Plan, 11 || which is inextricably intertwined with the JCBA, Plaintiffs claim is grounded in the JCBA. 12|| Accordingly, his claim is a minor dispute under the RLA. Thus, under the RLA, the Court 13} lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's claim. Plaintiff will not be given leave || to amend under Rule 15 because “the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation 15 || of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995)). IV. CONCLUSION 18 For the above reasons, 19 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15) 20 || and vacating oral argument scheduled for September 25, 2025. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to enter final judgment || consistent with this Order and close this case. 23 Dated this 4th day of September, 2025. 24 25 a . ~P 26 SO □

27 Gnted States District lodge 28

-10-