This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P purchased first class tickets on a flight with D1. P requested seats in the smoking section which was confirmed prior to departure. When they arrived, they were told that the smoking section was filled and would have to sit in nonsmoking. Ps alleged that in informing them that they could not smoke the flight attendant treated them 'brusquely,' causing them extreme embarrassment, humiliation, and emotional distress. P brought suit to enjoin D from enforcing its regulation requiring that no-smoking areas be provided on aircraft because D lacked the statutory authority. P sued D1 for breach of contract and sought an injunction against D1 to prevent implementation of D’s regulation. D1 moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The court rejected Ps' request for injunctive relief as there was neither an express nor an implied private right of action under the Act. And even if there was P failed to allege any threat of irreparable injury. The contract and tort claims were dismissed for lack of diversity, and there was no possibility that there was $10,000 in damages. Even with an amended complaint, the court dismissed as there was no possibility of $10,000 in damages. D moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. P claimed D lacked authority to regulate smoking. The court dismissed. Ps petitioned D and D claimed it had the authority to regulate smoking. Ps appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.