United States v. 2013-05-09 | 11-56290 | Michael Webb V. Bermuda Dunes Airport Corp. |…

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for**
the District of Montana, sitting by designation.
1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL WEBB, Nos. 11-56290
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:08-cv-565-RBL-AJW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DESERT BERMUDA
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 9, 2013
Pasadena, California
Before: REINHARDT and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY, District
Judge.**
This case arises out of a plane crash that killed a flight instructor and badly
FILED
MAY 09 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
injured the student pilot, Michael Webb. Desert Bermuda Development
Corporation owned the airport.
Webb sued Desert Bermuda in California state court, alleging a state-law
premises liability claim. The case was removed to federal district court, and the
district court granted summary judgment in favor of Desert Bermuda. We vacate
that decision because the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction.
Webb did not challenge the district court’s decision to not remand this case
to state court, but we must sua sponte address our subject matter jurisdiction if it
appears to be lacking. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372
F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004).
This case was removed on the basis of the complete preemption doctrine.
See Balcorta v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 208 F.3d 1102, 1107 n.7 (9th
Cir. 2000). The FAA does not create a federal cause of action for personal injury
suits. Martin ex rel. Heckman v. Midwest Express Holdings, 555 F.3d 806, 808
(9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Consequently, the complete preemption doctrine
is inapplicable here and does not provide a basis for removal. Moore-Thomas v.
Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1245–46 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Beneficial
Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 9 (2003)).
We vacate the district court’s disposition and remand with instructions that

-- 2 of 3 --

3
the district court remand this case to state court. Because we vacate for lack of
jurisdiction, we note that the state court will not be bound by the district court’s
determinations regarding preemption and California premises liability.
VACATED and REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --