Yasuko Ishikawa v. Delta Airlines, Inc., a Georgia Corporation, and Labone, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
Yasuko ISHIKAWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DELTA AIRLINES, INC., a Georgia Corporation, Defendant, and Labone, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellant
Opinion
ORDER The opinion filed on September 12, 2003, and appearing at 343 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 2003), is amended as follows:
At page 1132, second paragraph, after the sentence ending “excluding the possibility of a state-law tort action” add new footnote 7:
LabOne argues that our decision conflicts with Frank v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 314 F.3d 195 (5th Cir.2002), which came down after briefing was completed in this case. There is no conflict.
Frank held that an employee’s tort claims against his employing airline were expressly preempted.
Frank is distinguishable because the claims were against the airline that employed the plaintiff, not, as in this case, against the laboratory. Consequently, the inconsistency in Frank between the federal regulatory scheme and the tort remedy was clear. For example, a federal regulation required that Delta select among the certified laboratories (it selected LabOne), but the plaintiffs tort claims included a claim of negligence for selecting LabOne. It is not clear from Frank how the Fifth Circuit would decide a claim such as this one against third-party tortfeasors.
With this amendment, the panel has voted unanimously to deny the petition for rehearing. Judges Kleinfeld and McKeown have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge Breyer has recommended the same.
The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc, and no judge of the court has requested a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35(b).
The petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(statute preempted any “law, regulation, standard, or order that is inconsistent with regulations prescribed under this chapter” (quoting 49 U.S.C. § 45106(a)))
Cited by 10 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Christopher Scott Hughes v. Eleventh Judicial
- Michael Chapman v. Lab One
- Michael Chapman Terri Lynn Chapman v. Lab One, a Missouri Corporation Lab One, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Daniel Howell v. Lab One, Inc., a Missouri Corporation Lab One, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Union Pacific Railroad Company, a Delaware Corporation
- Fifie v. Cooksey
- Siotkas v. LabOne, Inc.
- Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc. v. Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc.
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.